THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3968 & 3970 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.469 of 2006 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and 2nd respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit started, and the evidence of PW-1 was recorded. The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.1664 of 2009 under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., with a prayer to receive a document, marked as Ex.P-10, in C.C.No.943 of 2006, in the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; and I.A.No.1663 of 2009 was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C., to recall PW-1, to introduce the said document in evidence. Through separate orders dated 25-10-2009, the trial Court allowed both the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, neither the petitioner, nor the 1st respondent is a party to the document, and the author of the letter, namely, the 2nd respondent, has remained ex parte in the suit. He contends that, when that letter was addressed to the Court, directly, it was not taken on record. 1st respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, is trying to advance the cause of the 2nd respondent, i.e. the 2nd defendant in the suit, which has chosen to remain ex parte. Sri Govardhan Venu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the letter has already formed part of the record of the Court, and there should not be any plausible objection for receiving the same in evidence. He contends that though the 2nd respondent has chosen to remain ex parte, the letter is very much relevant, to throw light upon the controversy in the suit. The document, which is sought to be filed through I.A.No.1664 of 2009, is a letter addressed by the 2nd respondent, which is a foreign company. The 1st respondent is not a party to that letter, except that the name of the petitioner herein is mentioned therein. A document can be introduced only by a person, who is a party to it. The 1st respondent, who is not a party to it, cannot be expected to answer any queries, as regards the contents thereof. The mere fact that the letter was part of record in a criminal case, cannot be the basis to receive in evidence in a civil case, unless it satisfies the requirements of admissibility and relevancy. Hence, the revisions are allowed, and the orders under revisions are set aside. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that an official from the 2nd respondent would be examined as witness, and that his right to place the document in question to prove that, through such person may be reserved. In case the author of the letter deposes as a witness, it shall be open to him to take necessary steps to make that letter as part of record. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-10-2009. KO