Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the defendants 2nd party /respondents 2nd party.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the learned Sub- Judge-VII, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 76 of 2013 whereby the petition dated 12.09.2018 filed on behalf of defendant 1st party/respondent 1st party for marking certified copy of Cadastral Survey Khesra Panji of plot nos. 143, 144, 145 as exhibit was allowed and were marked as Ext. E for defendant 1st party/opposite 1st party.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that true copy of the register of Khata No. 497 endorsed by the Circle Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga is not a certified copy of a public document in terms of Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said Circle Officer has transcribed a copy of register of Khata No.497 having Plot Nos. 143, 144 and 145 but it did not compare the same with original. Hence, in terms of illustration E of Section 63 of the Evidence Act, said copy of register of Khata No. 497 is not a secondary evidence. He has further contended that even if it is believed to be a secondary evidence the same could not have been proved save and except by way of filing a certified copy of the document.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleading, he contended that the order impugned passed by the trial court whereby it has allowed the petition dated 01.12.2018 filed by the defendant 1st party for marking the certified copy of Cadastral Survey Khesra Panji as exhibit is bad in law and is fit to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that since the true copy of register of Khata No. 497 was filed with endorsement “certified to be true” by the Circle Officer, no illegality can be found in the order impugned dated 01.12.2018.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant 2nd party/respondent 2nd party has also adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the State. He has further contended that the endorsement made by the Circle Officer on the true copy of the register of Khesara No. 497 would come under the purview of certified copy. Hence, no illegality can be found in the order impugned. He has further contended that the entry by public servant in a public record or other official book or register or record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact is relevant and when public servant makes it himself in discharge of his official duty the probability of its being true and correct is high. The entry in the revenue record is to be accepted at its face value, there cannot be any inquiry into the correctness of the said entries. According to him, the entries made in Cadestral Survey Khesra Panji in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act are admissible piece of evidence and the same would also carry presumption of its correctness.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

8. The brief facts of the case are that Title Suit No. 76 of 2013 was instituted in the court of Sub-Judge-VII, Darbhanga for declaration of title and possession of plaintiff over the suit land and for issuance of order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to disturb the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land and to maintain status quo over the same till final disposal of the suit.

9. On 12.09.2018, a petition was filed on behalf of defendants-respondents 1st party in said suit in the court of Sub-Judge-VII, Darbhanga praying therein that the certified copy of Cadastral Survey Khesra Panji of Plot Nos. 143, 144 and 145 be marked as exhibit.

10. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a rejoinder on 04.10.2018 to the petition dated 12.09.2018 submitting therein that the document which has been filed does not fulfill the requirement of certified copy as the same is not the true copy of the re