P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 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.

( 4 ) THE Lower Court in my view has rightly overruled the objection following the decision reported in M. Parvathaiah vs. B. N, Reddy. Justice Kodandaramayya, had an occasion to consider the scope of Sections 74 and 65 of the Evidence Act. In a well considered judgment in M. Parvathaiah vs. B. N. Reddy the learned Judge observed as follows:-"as the plaint and the written statement are not public documents in the sense that they are not prepared by a public officer and they cannot be said to form the acts of the officer but to the extent they form the records of acts of the public officer they are admissible by producing the certified copies to the extent of showing the existence and the condition of such documents within the meaning of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, though not their contents as envisaged by that Section. Hence the plaint and written statement are admissible to the extent of proving that a particular suit is filed against a particular individual and to show the proceedings between the parties. "the learned Judge further observed that admission of certified copies of plaint and written statement are universally adopted for the purpose of contradicting the witness on his earlier statement. Therefore, when certified copy of plaint and written statement are held admissible, there should not be any difficulty in holding that the "report filed by the Commissioner in an earlier suit is also admissible.

( 5 ) THE admissibility of a document as evidencing a transaction is different from admitting the document to prove the contents thereof. So far as the admissibility of a document as evidence of a transaction is concerned, anybody who obtained the certified copy of the said document can produce the same for the purpose of showing the said transaction and the document is admissible for that purpose. But, if the party wants to prove the contents, they can be proved by the author of the document. Therefore, if the Commissioner is not examined,, the document would not become inadmissible as contended by the learned counsel but the probative value of the report would be very weak.

( 6 ) JUSTICE Kodandaramayya, in another decision reported in V. Satyavathi vs. P. Venkataratnam observed as follows:-"hence it is seen if the truth of the contents itself is in issue the proof of document viz. , proving the genuineness and contents by producing the same would not be sufficient to prove the truth of the contents of the document unless the writer of the document is examined. In the absence of such evidence, the contents only constitute hearsay evidence. However, it is not correct to say that the documen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document