M RAMA NAIDU Vs. B SRINIVASULU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.1998/73 on the file of the 1st Additional District Munsif s Court, Chittoor are the petitioners in this revision petition.

(2.) While the plaintiff was being examined as P.W.1, he wanted to mark as exhibit, the certified copy of the Commissioner's report in O.S.No.152/68 for which, the petitioners had objected to. The lower Court considered the said objection and overruled the same by its order dated 22-2-1991. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this revision.

(3.) Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Commissioner's report in an earlier suit, cannot be marked since it is neither a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, nor the Commissioner a public servant and the report is not a document prepared in discharge of his official duty. Elaborating this argument, the learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner appointed by a Court under a warrant issued by the Court is not a person performing public duty cast under any statute. In other words, the Commissioner is not appointed by virtue of the duty cast under a statute but, is appointed by the Officer of the Court. Therefore, the report can only be received as a private document and it cannot be branded as a public document.