JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition is directed, against, the dis-affirmative orders pronounced by the earned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, H.P., upon, an application, cast under the provisions of 65, of, the Indian Evidence Act, wherethrough the aggrieved plaintiff hence sought leave to adduce secondary evidence, vis-à-vis, the sale deed, of, 3.11.1976, executed by one Reshmu Devi. A perusal of the plaint, unfolds qua a vivid disclosure, standing borne therein, vis-à-vis, the plaintiff seeking rendition, of, a declaratory decree, vis-à-vis, his being owner in possession of the suit land, and, the anvil of the afore espousal, stands rather rested, upon, the afore-referred sale deed. However, it is averred in the plaint, and, in the instant application, qua the original thereof, being purveyed to the Halqa Patwari concerned, in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the making, of, an attestation of mutation, (i) and with the plaintiff, in contemporaniety thereof, being a minor, hence his being disabled, to retrieve it, from, the Halqua Patwari concerned. Consequently, the certified copy/attested copy of the aforesaid sale deed, hence, was strived, to, fall within the ambit of clauses (e) and (f) of Section 65 of the of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “Section 65 (e) of Indian Evidence Act:- “When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74;” “Section 65 (f) of Indian Evidence Act:- when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in (India) to be given in evidence” 2. And, naturally, in consonance therewith, the afore espoused leave stood, hence staked by the aggrieved plaintiffs (iii) for determining, the, vigor of the afore contention, it is imperative to therefrom, hence mobilize, the, innate nuance, of, mandate thereof. Initially, for any document, hence being construable, to be, a public document, render all the apposite therewith ingredients, borne in Section 74, of, the Indian Evidence Act, the provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, to hence beget satiation: “74. Public document:- The following documents are public documents: (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts (i) of the sovereign authority (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept [in any state] of private documents. 3. 3. Sub-section (2) thereof, makes apparent unfoldments, qua all public records, as maintained, and, appertaining, vis-à-vis, any private document, thereupon, rather rendering any private document, being hence construable to be a public document or theirs/it falling within the domain of Section 74 (supra). Since, any registered deed of conveyance, though, is a private document, yet with records thereof, standing maintained, in, the office of Sub-Registrar concerned, thereupon any registered deed of conveyance, is construable to be a public document, whereupon, the, mandate borne in Section 76, and, 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “Section 76:- Certified copies of public documents:- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written, at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized bylaw to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. “Section 77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies:- Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.” 4. Are also obviously applicable, thereon (iv) and, also certified copies, of, any private document, as, kept in public records, are statutorily injuncted, to be tenderable in evidence, in proof of contents, of, the originals, of, the afore public document, and, the afore tendering, of, certified copies, of, private documents, as maintained in pubic records, concomitantly also renders them to be both readable, as well as, admissible in evidence. However, the coinage “may be” produced, occurring in Section 77 of the Act, does leave open space, for forming an inference, qua, the afore tendering of certified copies, of, private documents, as maintained, in public records, rather carrying a presumption qua admissibility thereof, and, also qua hence therethrough originals, thereof, being proven, (v) yet also obviously, the afore presumption is rebuttable, only by adduction, of, cogent rebuttal thereoto evidence. 5. 5. As a sequel, it is to be determined, whether, an attested copy of the afore sale deed, does fall, within the domain of Section 76, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (i) and importantly, only, upon with the hereat, rather attested copy of the afore sale deed, rather satiating all the apposite therewith ingredients borne, in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereupon it would be rendered construable to thereafter, fall, within the domain of Section 77, of, the Indian Evidence Act. (ii) However, Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes vivid echoings, vis-à-vis, the apt certified copy, enjoining satiation, vis-à-vis, all the ingredients borne therein, for thereupon a purported certified copy, being so construable (iii) in as much as, a certified copy, rather carrying thereon, the requisite certification, (iv) and, the, aforestated certificate being enjoined to be also carrying, hence the date, title and the seal of the certifying officer, and, obviously his signatures being also enjoined, to, occur thereon, (v) bearing in mind the afore postulation, borne in Section 76, of, the Indian Evidence Act, wherewith hence, satiation is enjoined to be begotton, vis-à-vis, the hereat rather attested copy of the afore sale deed, (vi) obviously enjoins an allusion being made thereto, and, allusion thereto hence unveils qua their occurring thereon, a seal of the officer concerned, exemplifying, qua it being an attested true copy, of the original, and, also his dated signatures are borne thereon. The afore mark of attestation made thereon, besides the seal of the officer attesting it, alongwith his signatures, rather hence being embossed thereon, prima-facie, does satiate the afore imperative ingredients, borne in Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act (vii), dehors the mere attestation thereof, without any certification in concurrence with the afore postulations, though, rather stricto-senso, within, the afore postulation, borne in Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather renders it to not fall within the domains thereof. However, even if, the afore manner of attestation, of the, apt copy derived, from, the requisite originals, is, though stricto-senso, not within, the, domain of the afore postulations, embodied in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, (viii) nonetheless when, upon perusing the reverse, of the afore attested copy, of the sale deed, it emanates qua it being registered, on 5.11.1976, with, the Sub-Registrar concerned, (vi) thereupon, it is to be concluded qua it emanating, from, the records of the Sub-Registrar concerned, and, it, prima-facie, bearing consonance therewith. Further sequel thereof is that, with clause (e) mandating qua, it being permissible, to grant leave to adduce, rather hence secondary evidence, vis-a-vis, the originals, of, a “public document”, and, when the registered deed of conveyance, though, is a private document, yet, with its visibly falling, within, the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 74, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (vii) thereupon, the afore attested copy of the afore sale deed, was receivable, in evidence, (viii) and, furthermore, when the mandate of clause (f) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, is also attracted hereat, and, when upon conjunctive readings of clause(s)(e) and (f) of Section 65 and 77, of, the Indian Evidence Act, an inevitable conclusion, rather ensues qua the afore attested copy of the apposite sale deed, being both permissibly readable, as secondary evidence, vis-à-vis, originals, thereof, besides, upon its tendering, it proving the originals thereof, thereupon it was befitting to allow the application, rather declining the apt relief. Preeminently, also when the afore marks of attestation, made on the afore copy, though, do not beget the strictest compliance, vis-à-vis, the afore postulations, borne in Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather when they do beget substantial compliance therewith, hence, when upon making the strictest insistences, vis-à-vis, strictest compliance being meted thereto, would rather beget injustice, and, further when the afore presumption, is rebuttable, (ix) thereupon strictest compliance therewith, is, untenable. 6. The learned Civil Judge, in declining the relief, has misconstrued the import of the afore referred provisions, and, has apparently committed a gross illegality and impropriety. 7. The petition is allowed. The impugned order, of, 12.3.2018, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Bilaspur, H.P. is quashed and set-aside. 6. The learned Civil Judge, in declining the relief, has misconstrued the import of the afore referred provisions, and, has apparently committed a gross illegality and impropriety. 7. The petition is allowed. The impugned order, of, 12.3.2018, pronounced by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Bilaspur, H.P. is quashed and set-aside. It is open for the respondent/defendant, to, within the mandate of Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, adduce, hence evidence, if any, for rebutting the adduced secondary evidence, vis-à-vis, the originals, of, the afore sale deed.