HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1557 of 2010 Date: June 18, 2010 Between: Sri Yela Bala Raju, S/o. late Vittal, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Junior Lecturer, R/o.H.No.3-3-13, Nehru Park Road, Jangaon Town & Mandal, Warangal District, and another … Petitioners And Smt. Challa Vijaya, W/o. Narra Gopal Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.H.No.6-2-P, Balaji Nagar, Jangaon Town & Mandal, Warangal District, and others ... Respondents Order: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 10-03-2010, passed in I.A.No.290 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2008, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the aforesaid suit, which was filed by the first respondent for injunction and damages. In the said suit, the first respondent filed I.A.No.290 of 2009 to receive some additional documents, namely, original agreement of sale dated 06-05-1997, receipts dated 03-06-1997, 11-11-1997 and 10-02-1998, which are alleged to have been executed by the father of the first petitioner herein. In the said I.A., the petitioners herein filed counter, wherein, while denying the allegations of the first respondent that the said documents were executed by the father of first petitioner, they have taken a specific stand that the deponent has no locus standi to file the present application. It is stated in the counter that the suit is posted for further arguments of P.W.1; at that stage, the present application is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice. I.A.No.290 of 2009 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff is allowed by the court below by the impugned order mainly relying on a judgment of this court in the case of Cheemakurthy Sree Krishna Mohan Rao and another v. Naragani Nagabhushanam and others[1]. In the said judgment, a learned single Judge of this court has held that documents not in possession or custody of parties to the suit or their pleaders but were in custody of a witness-third party – Order 13 Rule 2 cannot be invoked. It was further held therein that proper course is to issue notice to produce the documents and to recall him with permission of court for proving them. In the present case, it is to be noted that no application is filed to receive the documents and one Mr. Thumma Dennis Reddy, who is a third party to the proceedings, has filed an affidavit and it is also stated so in the very affidavit itself. If any documents are to be filed other than the listed documents which are filed at the stage of institution of the suit, only parties to the suit can file petition to receive additional documents, but not a third party witness. In spite of taking such plea in the counter filed by the petitioners herein, the court below has not considered the said plea and wrongly applied the aforesaid judgment of this court, which cannot be applied to the facts of the case, and allowed the I.A. Further, a witness who is produced on behalf of the plaintiff on his own cannot file application to receive additional evidence. If additional documentary evidence is to be produced and if for any reason such documents are not filed at the time of institution of the suit, such application can be filed, only by explaining the delay, by a party to the suit, but not by a third party who is being examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The court below has misread the judgment of this court referred above. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 10-03-2010, passed in I.A.No.290 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2008, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, is set aside. Civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently I.A.No.290 of 2009 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 18, 2010 MRR [1] 1997(3) ALT 604