IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4170 of 2008 Between: Adireddy Sreeramulu ..... PETITIONER AND Adireddy Appalanaidu and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4170 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.220/2006 filed by the respondents herein on the file of the I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the petitioner, being the defendant filed I.A.696/2008 under Or.13 Rule-10 CPC r/w.Rule-128 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to order to send for the document i.e. partition deed/agreement dated 06.05.2000 which is lying in O.S.302/2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. It is stated that the suit filed against the petitioner is for partition of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties were partitioned and reduced into writing on 06.05.2000 and the said document was filed in another suit O.S.302/2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam and the trial in the said suit is not yet commenced and the said document is not yet marked and the endeavour made by him to obtain certified copy of the document has become futile exercise and the said document is essential to substantiate his contention. Accordingly, he filed the above said application to pass an order for sending the document lying in another suit. Counter was filed by the plaintiff contending that the said document cannot be summoned as the said document itself was unregistered one and not admissible and as such, the said document cannot be received in evidence. The said document requires to be stamped and registered under the Stamp and Registration Act. The Court below dismissed the said application, against which this Civil Revision Petition is filed, contending that the Court below erred in dismissing the said application, though the ingredients of Or.13 CPC have been complied with. Heard both the counsel. Under Order 13 Rule-7 CPC every document, which has been admitted in evidence, or a copy thereof where a copy has been substituted for the original under Rule-5, shall form part of the record of the suit. Under Order 13 Rule-7(2) CPC document not admitted in evidence shall not form part of the record. I am of the opinion that unless the said partition deed/agreement dated 06.05.2000 is marked as a document and receive in evidence in O.S.302/2006, it cannot be said that the said agreement is the part of the record. If that be so, a copy of the agreement which is not made a part of the record can be summoned or called for. As the said document is not made as part of the record, question of ordering the said document from some other Court to the Court in question does not arise. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, as and when the said required document is marked in other suit, it is always open for the petitioner to obtain certified copy of the same and seek for summoning of the original. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 09.12.2010 Dsr