Short answer. Generally yes, and the rule backs them up. Rule 132, Section 26 provides that a public record whose official copy is admissible in evidence must not be removed from the office where it is kept, except upon a court order made where inspecting the actual record is essential to deciding a pending case.
What the law says
Any public record, an official copy of which is admissible in evidence, must not be removed from the office in which it is kept, except upon order of a court where the inspection of the record is essential to the just determination of a pending case.
Rule 132, Section 26 — Irremovability of public record. Read the full provision →
Why the default is "no, it stays put"
Public records are relied on by far more people than just the parties to a particular lawsuit — a land title, a birth record, or an official register may be needed by the government office itself, by other members of the public, or by other pending transactions at any given moment. If any litigant could simply demand the physical original be handed over and carried off, the office's ordinary functioning would be disrupted and the record itself put at risk of loss or damage. Section 26 protects against that by making the office the default custodian and keeping the record there unless a court specifically orders otherwise.
Why an official copy is usually enough anyway
The rule's own framing signals the practical answer to most disputes: it applies to a public record "an official copy of which is admissible in evidence," meaning the law already anticipates that a certified copy will ordinarily do the job the original would have done in court. For the overwhelming majority of cases, a party does not actually need the physical record itself — a properly certified true copy carries the same evidentiary weight, satisfies the court, and avoids the entire question of removal, delay, and risk to the original document.
When a court order can actually move the record
The exception is narrow and requires more than mere convenience: a court must find that inspection of the actual record is essential to the just determination of a pending case, not simply helpful or preferable to a certified copy. That standard is meant for situations where a certified copy genuinely cannot substitute — for instance, where the physical document itself is disputed on grounds a copy cannot resolve, such as an allegation of tampering, forgery, or an irregularity visible only on the original. Absent that kind of showing, a party should expect to work from a certified copy rather than the record leaving its office.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 26 — Irremovability of public record
- Rule 132, Section 25 — What attestation of copy must state
- Rule 132, Section 27 — Public record of a private document