IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI ON THE 2^nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022 Misc. Petition No.4185 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

PRAVEEN MALPANI S/O SETH BAL KRISHNA DAS JI MALPANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST & BUSINESSMAN, R/O 734, HANUMANTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI R.K. SANGHI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. M/S VIJAY ELECTRICALS, A REGISTERED FIRM, THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BHURA S/O MOTILAL BHURA, ADULT, R/O H.NO.524, MARHATAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. VIJAY KUMAR BHURA S/O MOTILAL BHURA, ADULT, R/O H.NO.524, MARHATAL, JABALPUR DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. ASHOSK KUMAR BHURA S/O SHRI KHUSHAL CHAND BHURA, ADULT, PARTNER OF M/S VIJAY ELECTRICALS, R/O H NO.524, MARHATAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR BHURA S/O SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR BHURA, ADULT, PARTNER OF M/S VIJAY ELECTRICALS, R/O HOUSE NO.524. MARHATAL, JABALPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. MUKESH KUMAR BHURA S/O NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF, ADULT, PARTNER OF M/S VIJAY ELECTRICALS, R/O H.NO.524, MARHATAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SMT. CHANDANBALA BHURA, W/O LATE TARA CHAND BHURA, ADULT, PARTNER OF M/S VIJAY ELECTRICALS, R/O H. NO. 524, MARAHATAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SMT. PRABHA BHURA, W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR BHURA, ADULT, PARTNER OF M/S VIJAY ELECTRICALS, R/O, H NO. 524, MARAHATAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

......................................................................................................

RESERVED ON : 29.08.2022 DELIVERED ON : 02.11.2022 ......................................................................................................

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

(O R D E R)

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 reje