THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4409 of 2007 Dated 29th January, 2011 Between: Sama Chandrakala …Petitioner And Sama Mangamma and 6 others …Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4409 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner herein is one Sama Chandra Kala. She was elected as Sarpanch of Midtanapally Gram Panchayat in the election held on 29-07-2006. 2. The 1st respondent herein namely Sama Mangamma filed Election Petition No.1 of 2006 in the Election Tribunal for Gram panchayats i.e., the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The trial in that election petition was taken up. It is seen that in the course of trial while recording the evidence of Sama Mangamma as P.W.1, the election tribunal marked Xerox copies of six voters lists as Exs.P.1 to P.6 and it is noted in the deposition of the said Mangamma and it is also mentioned in the docket order dated 29- 06-2007 in the election petition on the file of the above election tribunal. Questioning the said order dated 29-06-2007 Smt.Chandrakala, the Sarpanch has filed this C.R.P. 3. The main plea of Smt.Chandrakala is that the voters lists, either original or certified copies, will be available in the office of the Gram panchayat authorities or the revenue authorities and Smt.Mangamma ought to have summoned them before the tribunal for marking or the tribunal could have, as well, summoned the same from the concerned authority but ought not to have marked the Xerox copies of the voters lists. 4. Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that as per the Evidence Act and also as per the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, the originals or certified copies as secondary evidence should be marked but not Xerox copies and that the tribunal committed a serious error in marking the Xerox copies of voters list. 5. In the material papers filed along with the C.R.P, the petitioner filed copy of the chief examination affidavit of Sama Mangamma and also the portion pertaining to the marking of voters lists copies in the election tribunal on 29-06-2007. From the said deposition, it is seen that at the time of marking the Photostat copies of the voters lists as Exs.P.1 to P.6, the learned counsel for Smt.Chandrakala raised an objection to the marking of the said documents and that the election tribunal has recorded the objection of her learned counsel and proceeded to mark the documents observing that the objection raised by the counsel for Smt.Chandrakala would be considered at the time of passing orders in the main election petition. 6. Thus, it can be said that the tribunal took into consideration the objection raised by the learned counsel for Smt.Chandrakala and brought them on record with a further observation that the said objection will be decided at a later date i.e., at the time of disposal of the election petition. In Shyamal Kumar Roy vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal[1] our Supreme Court has laid down that where, without going into the sufficiency of stamp duty, an instrument is allowed to be taken on record in evidence with an endorsement “objected, allowed subject to objection” the right of the party raising the objection remains open and that can be judicially determined at the appropriate stage. This principle equally applies to the present case also and thus this decision also enables the counsel for Smt Chandrakala to argue about objections at a later stage of the election petition or even at the time of its disposal. Further, it is well settled rule that just because a document is marked, it does not mean that it stands proved and the party relying on the said document has to prove it according to law. 7. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that it shall be open for the petitioner i.e., Smt.Sama Chandrakala to raise her objections about the documents marked subject to objection. It can therefore be said that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The election tribunal shall consider all the objections raised by the petitioner- Smt. Sama Chandrakala with regard to the documents in question and also consider her application if any for summoning of the certified copies or originals of the voters lists in question and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 29th January, 2011 VJL/CVRK [1] (2006) 11 SCC 331