HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2267 of 2010 Date: 11th June 2010 Between: Ramasahayam Jyothi Devi. … Petitioner And Challa Aruna Devi. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2267 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, aggrieved by the order, dated 19.03.2010, passed in the said suit. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. During the course of evidence, the plaintiff has filed copies of pahanis for the years 2004-05 to 2008-09. At the stage of marking of these documents, the petitioner has raised objections, on the ground that they are not the certified copies. Rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner/ defendant, the Court below has passed the impugned order, granting permission for marking of those documents. Hence, this revision. In this revision, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff are not certified copies, and hence, the Curt below ought not to have allowed for marking of such documents. The documents, which are allowed to be marked are the pahani patrikas, preparation of which, is governed by the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Under Section 2(1) of the Act, ‘Certified Copy’ or ‘Certified Extract’ is defined as a copy or extract, which is certified in the manner prescribed by Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A perusal of the provision under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act indicate that any copy, which is in the custody of a public servant and is furnished by such public servant, certifying it to be a copy of the original, on the application submitted by the applicant, be construed as a certified copy. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the collection of legal fee is not indicated, but such payment need not be indicated on the document itself. A perusal of the documents shows that they are issued by the Village Revenue Officer, and are attested by the Tahsildar. It is also stated that they are copies of pahanis. In that view of the matter, the documents, which are under question, are the certified copies within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th June 2010 ajr