In a suit for injunction simplicitor filed by him the revision petitioner, in order to establish his possession, got marked a certified copy of the pahani as Ex.A.7. Thereafter he, in order to prove Ex.A.7, filed a petition to issue summons to the Superintendent, Office of the Tahsildar cum Deputy Collector, Quthubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to give evidence with regard to his issuing Ex.A.7 to the applicant i.e. revision petitioner. By the order under revision, the trial Court dismissed the said petition. Hence, this revision by the plaintiff.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioner is that inasmuch as the respondents are disputing the existence of Survey No.109/1 itself, in order to prove its existence, the revision petitioner produced Ex.A.7 and as the revision petitioner has to prove Ex.A.7, revision petitioner wants to examine the Superintendent, Office of the Tahsildar cum Deputy Collector, Quthubullapur Mandal, who issued it and so the trial Court was in error in dismissing the said petition.

3. The plaint contains the boundaries of the plot in respect of which the revision petitioner is seeking injunction. It is well known that when boundaries are defined and are well known, the survey number of the plot in those boundaries or its extent is not of much relevance or consequence in identifying the said property. So, what is the survey number of the land in respect of which the revision petitioner is claiming injunction may not be of much relevance.

4. It is well known that Pahanis are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Certified copies of public documents can be obtained in view of Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Question of proving a public document by examining the person who issued it does not arise in view of Section 77 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that certified copies of public documents can be produced in proof of the contents of a public document. It would have been a different case if the genuineness of Ex.A.7 is disputed and if it is stated that Ex.A.7 in fact was not issued by the office of the Tahsildar cum Deputy Collector, Quthubullapur, or that it is a forged document. When the genuineness of Ex.A.7 is not questioned, question of proving Ex.A.7 by calling the person who issued it by examining him as a witness does not arise. Time of that public servant need not be wasted by summoning him to Court for proving Ex.A.7, which does not require any further proof. So, I find no grounds to admit the revision.

5. Hence the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.