JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for modification of the order dated 24.02.2020 whereby the application for leading additional evidence has partly been allowed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction for declaring GPA No.3639/4 dated 24.09.2001, sale deed bearing No.1398 dated 28.05.2004, mutation bearing No.6647 dated 08.09.2007 and all the subsequent entries in the revenue record as illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner. During course of proceedings, an application for permission to produce additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and the following documents were sought to be produced:

(i) Certified copies of the statements of Ramchander, Narender Deshwal, Bijender, Satbir, Ramdhari, Dhajja Ram, Baljit Singh, R.K. Tyagi, Advocate, Janeshwar and Dharampal recorded by the police officials in the complaint titled as Ram Chander Vs. Ram Dhari etc. bearing case No.RBT-395/239-13/03.09.2015 pending in the Court of Ms.Deepti SDJM, Bahadurgarh

(ii) Certified copy of letter No.Mis/90/302/2018 dated 11.12.2018 issued by Bar Council of Delhi received by the police in enquiry.

(iii) Certified copy of order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Ms.Deepti, SDJM, Bahadurgarh in criminal complaint Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari etc.

3. Vide order dated 24.02.2020 the plaintiff-petitioner was permitted to lead additional evidence by way of documents mentioned at (ii) and (iii), however, the prayer qua (i) i.e. certified copies of the statements of Ramchander, Narender Deshwal, Bijender, Satbir, Ramdhari, Dhajja Ram, Baljit Singh, R.K.Tyagi, Advocate, Janeshwar and Dharampal recorded by the police officials in the complaint titled as Ram Chander Vs. Ramdhari etc. bearing case No.RBT-395/239-13/03.09.2015 pending in the Court of Ms.Deepti SDJM, Bahadurgarh, was disallowed. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that all the documents form part of the judicial record of the case pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh and the plaintiff-petitioner only seeks permission to produce the certified copies of the said statements. It is further the contention that no oral evidence is required to be led in this regard. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pyare Lal Vs. Meher Singh & Ors. (2010(51) RCR (Civil) 108) to contend that if a party obtains certified copy of the documents from a Court file, the same is to be treated as a public document.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 states that the application does not say as to when the said documents came to the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner as also all the statements recorded before the Police could not form part of the judicial record.

6. Heard.

7. In the present case certified copies of the statements mentioned at Serial No.(i) in the application form part of the judicial record in case bearing No.RBT-395/239 dated 13.09.2015 pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bahadurgarh. The plaintiff-petitioner only seeks permission to produce the certified copies of the same from the judicial record.

8. The objection of the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the documents do not form part of the judicial record cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the plaintiff-petitioner is wanting to produce certified copies, which have been taken from the Court concerned. Qua the admissibility or the evidential value of the documents, the same is a question which would be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of arguments. The Supreme Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat , (2001(3) SCC (1)) held as und