JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of parties, the petition is finally heard.

2. This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for calling the record of the case decided by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur saying that the documents which have been referred in the application can be produced by the plaintiff by getting certified copies of the documents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has not considered the legal position that certified copies of the private documents are only secondary evidence and without calling the original, the same cannot be considered to be a proved document. He further submits that by calling the record of the trial Court containing the original documents which are required to be proved, no prejudice would have caused to the Court or to the party and as such, according to him, the order rejecting application is contrary to law. He relies upon various judgments reported in AIR 2014 Orissa 128, parties being Smt. Baijayanti Nanda Vs. Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfat Adhikari Mahanta Bansidhar Das Goswami and others, 2011(4) M.P.L.J. 140- Haseena Bi Vs. State of M.P., 2011(3) M.P.L.J. 588- Mamta Awasthy and others Vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, (2021) 4 SCC 786- Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited Vs. Regency Mahavir Properties and Others, AIR 2013 SC 613- V.K. Sasikala Vs. State and submits that the order passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application is not sustainable and, it is liable to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC be allowed and record of the trial Court be called.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff in his application has contended that there were certain applications and documents though filed in the present case but record is required to prove those documents and merely because certified copies of those documents are obtained, but those documents cannot be proved and as such record is required to be called. However, learned trial Court has rejected the application saying that certified copy would serve the purpose as record of the court is a public document. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that merely because the certified copies of the documents filed in the Court are obtained but those documents cannot be said to be a public document and contents of the documents cannot be proved unless the original is produced in the Court. He submits that merely because a document is filed and that has become part of record, cannot be considered to be a public document.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and submitted that the documents which are part of the record of the Court are the public documents and are not required to be proved with the original one and as such, application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC has rightly been rejected by the Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh and Others (2012) 1 SCC 425 and on a decision of this Court reported in 2011(3) M.P.L.J. 100- Jagdish Prasad Vs. Daulatram and Another.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also supported the order passed by the trial Court and placed reliance upon judgment of Jaswant Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the compromise decree passed as per the terms and conditions of the compromise between the parties is a public document in terms of Section 74 and, therefore, if certified copy of the said decree is produced, the same is admissible and is not required to be proved with the original one. Further reliance is placed in the case