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, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document