IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4519 of 2009 Between: Kammari Venkatesham .. Petitioner AND Puram Mallesham and others .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 24-07-2009 in I.A. No.320 of 2009 in O.P. No.3 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Gajwel, Medak District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Bhooma Goud, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D.V.N. Acharya, Advocate for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri S. Bhooma Goud, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.V.N. Acharya, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are stated to be not necessary parties. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, dated 24-07-2009 in I.A. No.320 of 2009 in O.P. No.3 of 2006 in the capacity of Election Tribunal under the statutory rules under Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The revision petitioner desired that the bona fide certificate containing the date of birth of his last daughter from the school where she is studying, be received so as to be produced and admitted in his evidence. The 1st respondent opposed the same on the ground of the certificate having been issued by a private school and relying on the decision in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P.[1], the 1st respondent desired the petition to be dismissed. The trial Court firstly took adverse note of the absence of any explanation by the revision petitioner for not filing the document when the counter was filed in compliance with Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It also referred to the precedents on the aspect more particularly the decision relied on by the 1st respondent about the probative value of the certificate issued by a private school. The failure to produce the extract of register of births and deaths, was also commented upon and consequently, the document was refused to be received and marked during the evidence. The revision petitioner challenged the said order herein contending that bona fide certificate is a genuine document, which could not have been shut out merely on the ground of delay and the question of admissibility could have been adjudicated only at the time of marking the document but not while permitting the document to be received. The decision of the Apex Court relied on by the 1st respondent and referred to by the trial Court was with reference to Section 35 of the Evidence Act concerning an entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, etc., is kept. The statutory provision deals with relevancy of such an entry, if it relates to a fact in issue or relevant fact, but does not preclude the entries in the records not maintained by public servants from being considered relevant or from being admitted into evidence. The decision dealing with the requirements to consider a document to be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act cannot, therefore, be considered as excluding the records maintained by a private school from judicial consideration in total. Relevancy, admissibility and probative value are three different issues, which should not be intermixed. If the daughter of the revision petitioner was studying in a private school and the entries relating to her are made in the records of the private school, the same may be definitely relevant pieces of evidence for the questions in issue in the election petition. While their probative value is altogether a different aspect, whether such records of the private school are maintained in the ordinary and regular course of business of that school and whether consequently, they are admissible or not, are also questions which have to be determined at the time of the document being tendered in evidence. The failure of the revision petitioner to produce an extract of the register of births and deaths relating to the same girl will also be a factor that may influence the acceptability of the certificate sought to be produced now by the revision petitioner and on such grounds, it could not have been totally excluded from consideration without being received at the inception. It is also true that there are no strong reasons adduced by the revision petitioner for not filing the document along with the counter, but it is always open for the Court to grant leave to produce such evidence. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and not to punish the parties for their technical lapses and the ultimate pursuit should be arrival at truth on merits after every opportunity to the parties before the Court. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the petition to receive the bona fide certificate by the trial Court appears to be a measure too harsh to the prejudice of the right of the revision petitioner to defend himself in the election petition. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the admissibility, relevancy and proof of the document in question, the bona fide certificate should be ordered to be received. Accordingly, the order in I.A. No.320 of 2009 in O.P. No.3 of 2006 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajwel, dated 24-07-2009 is set aside and the said I.A. No.320 of 2009 is allowed. But it is made clear that all further proceedings in the main case shall be uninfluenced by any observations made in this order and the 1st respondent is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the trial Court concerning this document, which shall be determined on their own merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-10-2009 Svv [1] (2006) 5 SCC 584