THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.3213 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners 1 and 2 are sons and petitioners 3 and 4 are daughters of late Stanley Dass. Respondents claim to be the children of the same Stanley Dass, but through a woman, by name Chaya Devi. Respondents filed O.S.No.559 of 2006 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for partition of the suit schedule properties, against the petitioners. A written statement was filed by the petitioners, denying the very relationship between the respondents, on the one hand, and Stanley Dass, on the other hand. To lay foundation to their case, the respondents intended to file a certificate of marriage between Stanley Dass and Chaya Devi. The petitioners raised an objection, as to the admissibility of the same. Therefore, the respondents filed I.A.No.216 of 2010, under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to take the said certificate on record. The I.A. was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order, dated 24.06.2010, the trial Court allowed the I.A. and permitted the certificate to be marked as an exhibit, subject to its proof. The said order is challenged in this revision. Sri A.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the certificate is not genuine, and the Pastor of the Church, who is said to have issued the certificate, addressed a letter, stating that there is no record evidencing marriage between Stanley Dass and Chaya Devi. He further submits that by the time Stanley Dass is said to have married Chaya Devi, he was already married, and thereby, incurred disqualification under the Indian Christian Act (for short ‘the Act’). He contends that the certificate is not at all admissible in evidence. The respondents filed the suit for partition. The question as to whether they are the children of Stanley Dass became relevant. With an object of proving that fact, the respondents sought to file the extract of marriage certificate. Section 61 of the Act provides for the issuance of a certificate by an Authority of the Church and confers authenticity upon it. The objection raised by the petitioners is about the genuinity of the certificate. That is a matter, which needs to be considered once the certificate is taken on record. The petitioners can adduce such evidence as is at their command to prove that the marriage certificate is not genuine and plead any facts, which have a bearing upon its legality. The mere marking of the document is not going to be end of the matter. The certificate filed by the respondents cannot be said to be irrelevant. The trial Court has already left the matter as to the proof of the document, open. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. Hence, the C.R.P. is disposed of, upholding order under revision, but leaving it open to the petitioners to adduce evidence, or to submit arguments, touching upon the genuinity and legality of the marriage certificate filed by the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:04.08.2010 GJ