JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. - The plaintiff, being the petitioner, has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.8.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in T.S.No. 136 of 1992 under Annexure - 3 allowing the petition filed by the defendant-opposite party No.4 with regard to exhibiting the plaint of C.S.No. 80 of 2006 as a public document under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. 2. The short facts of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner being the plaintiff filed a suit bearing T.S.No. 136 of 1992 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri for declaration of her right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The defendants being summoned appeared in the suit. Besides defendant No.4, Mina Samahtaray and defendant No.5, Santanu Mohapatra, none filed the written statement in the suit. The written statement filed by the defendant No. 5 was not accepted by the Court, However, defendant No.4 contested the suit by filing her written statement. On the basis of the pleadings available, issues were framed and hearing of the suit commenced and witnesses from both the sides were examined and in course of such hearing documents were also exhibited. 3. In the suit itself, defendant-opposite party No.4 herein, was examined as D.W.4. Neither in the written statement nor during her examination she has stated anything regarding filing or pendency of C.S. No. 80 of 2006 and its relevancy to the present suit. But after closure of evidence of defendant No.4, she examined one Upendra Samantaray as D.W.5 in the suit who disclosed regarding pendency of C.S.No. 80 of 2006, in consequence thereof defendant No.4, filed petitions vide Annexure – 1 series for admitting the certified copy of the plaint in C.S.No. 80 of 2006 as evidence facilitating D.W.4 for making the same as exhibit, granting permission to file certified copy of the plaint in C.S. No. 80 of 2006 and to call for the file of the said suit. 4. The plaintiff-petitioner objected vide Annexure-2 to the petitions filed in Annexure-1 series stating, inter alia, that the plaint in C.S. No. 80 of 2006 is quite irrelevant to the suit before the Court and the plaint being not a public document as per the provisions of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be admitted into evidence and thus, prayed for dismissal/rejection of the petitions. 5. 5. Learned Court below after hearing the parties allowed the petitions vide Annexure-1 series and admitted the plaint into evidence and marked the same as exhibit vide order dated 16.08.2007 under Annexure-3. 6. Mr. B. Tripathy, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner strenuously urged that the order impugned amounts to arbitrary and illegal exercise of power by the Court below as the plaintiff-petitioner is not a party in C.S.No. 80 of 2006, and more so the plaint of a suit being not a public document cannot be admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit in the suit without any formal proof as the subject matter as well as the suit land are altogether different. He further submitted that the suit in C.S.No. 80 of 2006 has been filed by one Sailabala Pattnaik and Bibhuti Bhusan Pattnaik and they have not come to the witness box and the plaint filed by them cannot be exhibited and admitted into evidence as the plaintiff-petitioner is not a party to the said suit. That apart defendant No.4, opposite party No.4, herein, has neither pleaded the said fact in her written statement nor deposed anything while she was examined as D.W.4 in the suit. Therefore, she has no competency in any manner to rely on the plaint filed in the said suit. Therefore, the learned Court below on wrong interpretation of fact and law arrived at the conclusion that in order to ascertain a graphic picture of the dispute the Court has to take the aid of the other reference. In order to substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment in Gulab Chand and others v. Sheo Karan Lall Seth and others, AIR 1964 Pat.45 and Radhashyam Mohanty and another v. Narayan Chandra Nath and others 64 (1987) CLT 102. 7. Mr. In order to substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment in Gulab Chand and others v. Sheo Karan Lall Seth and others, AIR 1964 Pat.45 and Radhashyam Mohanty and another v. Narayan Chandra Nath and others 64 (1987) CLT 102. 7. Mr. P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party No.4 states that during cross-examination of D.W.5 by the plaintiff-petitioner it was elicited that another Civil Suit bearing C.S.No. 80 of 2006 is now pending in the same Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri and after cross-examination of D.W.5 a petition has been filed by the defendant-opposite party No.4 in the suit to mark the certified copy of the plaint in C.S.No. 80 of 2006 as exhibit to which the plaintiff-petitioner has objected and relying upon the judgment of this Court in L.I.C. v. Narmada Agrawala, AIR 1963 Orissa 103, the learned Court allowed the petition with regard to marking of the plaint as exhibit and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Court below by holding that the plaint is a pubic document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment in Jagdishchandra Chandual Shah v. State of Gujarat and others, 1989 Cri.L.J. 1724. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance now it is to be considered whether plaint is a public document or not within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. 9. Public document has been defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows: "74. Public documents - 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 pf private documents." 10. This Court while considering Section 74 of the Evidence Act passed a judgment in W.P.(C) No. 16352 of 2006 (Biseswar Dandpat v. Saraswati Dei and others) disposed pf on 11.02.2014 analyzing "what constitute a 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. 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, or of the commonwealth other part of Her Majesty's dominions, or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept in any state of private documents. [Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 74]. What constitute public document has also been considered in, Manorama Srivastava v. Saroj Srivastava, AIR 1989 All. 17 , wherein the Allahabad High Court held as follows: "A public document is such a document contents of which are of public interest and the statements are made by authorized and competent agents of the public in the course of their official duty. Public are interested in such a document and entitled to see it, so that if there is anything wrong in it they would be entitled to object. In that sense it becomes a statement that would be open to the public to challenge or dispute and therefore, it has a certain .amount of authority. See New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Krishna Sharma, AIR 1998 Delhi 386, 388." With reference to the question of admissibility of a public document in evidence, the following observations were made by Lord BLACKBURN: "There "should be a public inquiry, a Public Document, and made by a Public Officer. I do not think that, 'Public' there, is to be taken in the sense of meaning of the whole world. I think an entry in the books of a Manor is 'public' in the sense that it concerns all the people interested in the manor and an entry, probably, in a Corporation pook concerning a matter or something in which all the corporation is concerned would be 'public' within that sense. But must be a 'public document', and it must be made by a Public Officer. I understand a 'public document', there, to mean, a document that is made for the purpose of the public making use of it and being able to refer to it. It is meant to be where there is a judicial, or quasi judicial, duty to enquire. I understand a 'public document', there, to mean, a document that is made for the purpose of the public making use of it and being able to refer to it. It is meant to be where there is a judicial, or quasi judicial, duty to enquire. It should be made for the purpose of being kept public, so that the persons concerned in it may have access to it afterwards" (per BLACKBURN J. Sturla v. Freccia, 50 LJ Ch. 96 : 5 App Cas 643, 644)." 11. Taking into consideration the above meaning of "public document" and applying the same in the present context, the Patna High Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the decision in Gulab Chand and others (supra) held as follows: "12. For the respondent [defendant No.6] it was contended that Ext. E-2, being a certified copy of a plaint, it would prove, without any further evidence, the contents of the original plaint including the signatures of the plaintiffs on that point. In other words, the argument was that the plaint filed in a Court was a public document, a certified copy of which could be granted under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when so granted, it will prove the contents of the original by the mere filing of it under Section 77. What are public documents 'are stated in Section 74 of the Evidence Act: Documents forming the acts or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunal, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country have been described as public documents. I cannot see how a plaint filed by a private person in Court to institute a case against some others can come within the descriptions of the documents given in that sub-section. Sub-section (2) of Section 74 can in no way include a plaint. The plaint is neither an act nor the record of an act of any public officer. There can be no strength in the contention that when the plaint is presented and the Court makes an order admitting or registering it, the plant becomes an act or the record of an act of a public officer presiding over the Court. The plaint is neither an act nor the record of an act of any public officer. There can be no strength in the contention that when the plaint is presented and the Court makes an order admitting or registering it, the plant becomes an act or the record of an act of a public officer presiding over the Court. At the most, it will become a part of the record maintained by the Court in that case after the plaint is admitted and registered, but that itself will not make it a public document. If it were, then anything filed in a case in a case in a Court of law either petitions or pleadings, private communications or documents which a party would file in a case would become public documents for the simple reason that they are on the record of a case in Court. The judgment and decree passed in a case are undoubtedly the acts of the Court, and they will be public documents on that account. Similarly, a petition of compromise which is made a part of the decree forms a part of the public document, but before its incorporation in the decree, it remains a private document, though filed in Court, forming a part of the case record. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon some cases to support the view that a plaint or a written statement filed in a case are public documents. The case of Mahomed Shababoodeen v. Wedgebarry, 10 Beng LR App. 31, was very much relied upon. No doubt, in that case a certified copy of the plaint was admitted on the ground that the plaint was a public document as it formed a part of the record but a certified copy of a written statement which was filed in the case was rejected. If a plaint could be a public document, there is no reason why the written statement should not come in that category; but the view taken in that case about the plaint being a public document and, as such, provable by the production of a certified copy did not find favour in any other Court. Authors on evidence like Field and Woodroffe doubted the correctness of that view also in their commentaries." 12. Authors on evidence like Field and Woodroffe doubted the correctness of that view also in their commentaries." 12. The above finding of the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court is fortified in view of the judgment reported in Tarkeshwar Prasad v. Devendra Prasad, AIR 1926 Patna 180 where plaint was held not to be a public document and certified copy thereof was rejected from the evidence. 13. In the case of Akshoy Ku. Bose v. Sukumar Dutta, AIR 1951 Cal. 320 , the written statement filed in a previous suit was set down as not a public document and its certified copy was not admissible in evidence without calling for the original. Mere production of a certified copy in such a case was found to be not sufficient secondary evidence, of its contents without any further evidence. 14. In case of Usuf Hasan v. Raunaq Ali, AIR 1943 Oudh 54, it was similarly held that the plaint is a private document and it must be proved by direct evidence and no formal evidence was given about the plaint. The lower Courts had drawn a presumption from the certified copy of the plaint about its genuineness but that was held to be an incorrect approach. 15. A similar view that a plaint is not a public document and that it should be proved like any other private document was taken in the case of Manbodh v. Hirasai, AIR 1926 Nag 339. The learned Single Judge of Patna High Court made a reference to Lakshan Chandra Mandal v. Takim Dhali and others, 39 Cal. LJ 90 - AIR 1924 Cal. 558 where the learned Celebrated Judge Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee observed that the distinction between the admissibility of a document as evidence of a transaction and admissibility of a document in proof of a statement contained therein is of a refined but of a fundamental character though frequently overlooked and for that the learned Judge has referred to several cases including the case of Seethapathi v. Venkanna, AIR 1922 Mad 71 (FB) and held that a plaint may be admissible in proof of the fact that a particular suit was brought by a particular person against someone on a particular allegation; but it cannot be admissible to prove the correctness of a statement contained therein unless it is proved by direct evidence or by secondary evidence as provided in the Evidence Act. 16. In Smt. Shamalata Wd/o. Manohar Raut and others v. Vishweshwara Tukaram Giripunje and another, AIR 2008 Bombay 2008, it is held as follows: The certified copy of the plaint is not a public document. Hence, it requires proof. For proving such document, original plaint suit have been called for in the Court. That is not done, hence the certified copy of the plaint could not be said to be proved at all." 17. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner on the judgment of this Court in Radhashyam Mohanty and another (supra) this Court held that the only pleadings in the suit were that of plaintiff and defendants and therefore, evidence is bound to be confined to the said pleadings. Therefore, evidence should be led to prove or disprove any of the facts comprised in the pleadings of the plaintiffs or defendants but the defendant cannot be permitted to lead evidence on a plea, which was not there before the Court" 18. In paragraph 12 of the judgment in Jagdishchandra Chandulal Shah (supra), the Gujarat High Court has held as follows: "So far as the document at SI. No.9 is concerned, it is the certified copy of the plaint filed against Mahobatsing Mansingh Jadeja by the complainant and it is a public document as it forms part of the record, as held by the High Court in the case of Shazada Mohomed Shahaboodeen v. Daniel Wedgeberry reported in (1873) 10 Beng LR (Appendix) 31 and therefore, that is also admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents thereof. However, when the question arises with regard to the signature thereon, it will be required to be proved in the same manner in which execution of the document is to be proved." 19. Referring to the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party No.4 argued that certified copy of a plaint filed in the Civil Court would be a public document and hence admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents thereof. 20. Referring to the aforesaid judgment learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party No.4 argued that certified copy of a plaint filed in the Civil Court would be a public document and hence admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents thereof. 20. In view of the analysis of the judgments cited before the Court in the forgoing paragraphs, the ratio decided in Jagdishchandra Chandulal Shah (supra), may constitute to be a per incuriam judgment as the earlier judgment available has not been taken into consideration whereas in Gulab Chand and others (supra) various judgments in the subject has been taken into consideration and after analyzing Section 74 of the Evidence Act, cogent reason has been assigned that plant may be admissible in proof of fact that a particular suit was brought by a particular person against someone on a particular allegation; but it cannot be admissible to prove the correctness of a statement contained therein unless it is proved by direct evidence or by secondary evidence as provided in the Evidence Act. In the present case, neither there is any whisper in the written statement filed by the defendant-opposite party No.4 with regard to pendency of C.S.No. 80 of 2006 nor in her evidence as D.W.4 has she stated anything about the same. The same has been spoken through evidence adduced by D.W.5, Upendra Samantaray who incidentally disclosed regarding pendency of C.S.No. 80 of 2006. The plaintiff-petitioner is not a party to the said suit and the said suit has been filed by Sailabala Pattnaik and Bibhuti Pattnaik and none of them examined as a witness in the present suit. Therefore, any application filed by them cannot be taken into consideration to exhibit the plaint as a public document so as to prove the case of defendant-opposite party No.4. applying the ratio of the judgment in Radhashyam Mohanty and another (supra), the pleadings in the suit were that of plaintiffs and defendants and the evidence therefore, is bound to be confined to the said pleadings. Hence, evidence should be led to prove or disprove any of the facts comprised in the pleadings of the plaintiffs or defendants but they cannot be permitted to lead evidence on a plea which was not there before the Court. 21. Hence, evidence should be led to prove or disprove any of the facts comprised in the pleadings of the plaintiffs or defendants but they cannot be permitted to lead evidence on a plea which was not there before the Court. 21. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law governing the field, this Court is of the definite conclusion that the plaint in C.S.No. 80 of 2006 is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the same cannot be admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit without proving the contents thereof. In that view of the matter, the order dated 16.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri in T.S.No. 136 of 1992 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No cost. Petition allowed.