While admitting the civil revision petition, on 03.12.2008 in C.R.P.M.P.No.7091 of 2008, interim stay had been granted.

2. Heard Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned counsel representing revision petitioner and M/s. Manjiri S Ganu, learned counsel representing respondent.

3. This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner- plaintiff as against an order made in I.A.No.75 of 2008 in O.S.No.480 of 2005 on the file of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. The said application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying for permission to mark Xerox copy of statement said to be in the handwriting of the son of the respondent-defendant. The said application was opposed on certain grounds and the learned Judge after recording certain reasons ultimately dismissed the said application without costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition had been preferred.

5. Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the learned Judge erred in exercise of the jurisdiction in illegally refusing to admit and mark the document on a wrong impression that the document was refused to be received a