HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR C.R.P. No.11 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is preferred against order dated 08.10.2007 in I.A.(SR) No.9564 of 2007 in O.S.No.46 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are defendants 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14 in O.S.No.46 of 2002, whereas respondents 1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs and other respondents are remaining defendants. The main contention of counsel for revision petitioners is that Court below received a Xerox copy of document without there being any material showing existence of original and very counter of defendant No.12 from whom plaintiff alleged to have received that Xerox copy discloses that she never handed over such document to plaintiffs and her specific plea is that the said document is fabricated, bogus and non-existent document. The other grievance of revision petitioners is that this document is not filed along with plaint and without filing any separate application to condone delay in filing document, plaintiffs have straight away filed document and trial Court without considering the same, permitted plaintiffs to file Xerox copy of document. It is further submitted that suit is filed for partition and after completion of PW.1’s evidence, plaintiffs have filed this petition and another petition and that trial Court without any reasonable ground, allowed petitions which caused injustice to respondents, therefore, orders of trial Court have to be set aside. I have perused material papers filed along with revision. As seen from order of learned III Additional Chief Judge, the petition appears to have been filed under Order 18 Rule 17 Read with Section 151 CPC. Thus, Order 18 Rule 17 deals with recall of witness, who has been already examined to put some more questions. But as seen from affidavit filed in support of petition, request of petitioner is to receive Xerox copy of document as secondary evidence and for that purpose to recall PW.2. But the decretal order shows that Court below has allowed petition and received Xerox copy of document as secondary evidence. When document is not filed along with plaint, it is mandatory on the party relying on such document to come with a petition with a prayer to receive document by condoning delay and as seen from record no such application is filed and Court below considered said document in recall petition itself. As rightly pointed out by counsel for petitioners, learned trial Court grossly erred in receiving the Xerox copy of document without any material showing existence of original or its lost. When the party from whom plaintiffs have claimed to obtained this document has specifically disputed it on affidavit and contended that no such document was ever executed and it is a bogus, fabricated and non-existent document, Court below without considering said objection mechanically allowed application even without verifying provision of law under which petition is filed and without referring to relief that was claimed in the petition. On a scrutiny of material, I have no hesitation in holding that trial Court grossly erred in receiving Xerox copy of document as secondary evidence without satisfying itself as to existence of original or its lost. For these reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 08.10.2007 in I.A.(SR) No.9564 of 2007 in O.S.No.46 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is set aside and revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 28-10-2014. kvrm HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR C.R.P. No.11 OF 2008 Dated 28.10.2014 kvrm