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

3

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.

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

4

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.

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

5

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 requi