The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for damages against the respondent-defendant, for making defamatory statements against him. According to him, the defamatory statements made by the respondent-defendant against him were broadcasted by the media including TV9, and that he came to know through the evidence of P.W.3, who happens to be the reporter of TV9, that the defamatory statements made by the defendant were recorded in the form of CD, which is available with TV9, and that at his request, the said CD was furnished to him along with covering letter by TV9, and so as to prove his case that the respondent made defamatory remarks against him, it is necessary that the said CD should be marked in evidence. No doubt, the respondent filed counter, expressing doubt about the authenticity of the CD and the letter produced by the petitioner, but they were factors which ought to be considered after full-fledged trial. Considering the nature of suit filed by the petitioner, which is filed against the respondent for damages, for the alleged defamatory remarks made against him by the respondent, and considering the nature of evidence, which the petitioner sought to produce, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below ought to have permitted the petitioner to produce the same, instead of rejecting the request of the petitioner, much less by recording findings touching the authenticity of the CD and the covering letter sought to be produced by the petitionerplaintiff and further holding that the CD is not the original, and it is a copy of the original CD and as such it cannot be marked in evidence and likewise the letter enclosed to the CD was not issued by TV9 and it is not on the letterhead of TV9, and hence its validity is doubtful, even before the parties could lead their evidence. The questions
