1. Heard Mr.Ghanshyamdas Mandani for petitioners and Mr.M.Rajamalla Reddy for respondents.

2. The defendants in O.S. No.62 of 2005 are the revision petitioners. The revision is directed against the order dated 11.08.2017 passed in Memo filed by the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioners. The Memo reads as follows:

“May it please your honour,

In the above case, on behalf of the defendants, Komakula Veeraiah accepted to give evidence and agreed to produce the simple agreement dated 08.05.1994 with in hands of him (sic) available with him, hence Honble Court may kindly receive the same more in the interest of justice.

Hence this Memo.

Sd/-

J.Satyanarayana Rao

Advocate for defendant

3. The Respondents opposed the prayer to receive a document through DW.2. The trial Court rejected the Memo and the order reads thus:

“Counsel for petitioner submits that K.Veeraiah accepted to give evidence on behalf of defendants and agreed to produce the simple agreement which is in his hands. Hence, prays the court to receive the document.

On the other hand the counsel for respondent submits that a witness cannot produce a document which creates interest in the subject matter of suit, moreover the alleged agreement is not admissible in evidence. As per recitals of said document, it is creating ownership in respect of several lands in favour of many persons. The alleged document is compulsory registerable document. Hence prays the court to dismiss this memo.

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

In the instant case the matter is entirely different, the party is not producing the document, the witness is producing the document in fact the party has not relied upon it and he has not stated any thing about this document. The party has not mentioned about the document in his pleadings, introducing this document at this stage without any pleadings i.e., more particularly through the witness, will cause prejudice to the other side, it is not proper to receive this document. Hence, this memo is hereby dismissed. Hence, the order.

Hence, the C.R.P.

4. The respondents filed O.S. No.62 of 2005 for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein their men, agents etc. from interfering with respondents possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule consists of Ac.2-00 of agricultural land in Survey No.109/A, described with boundaries at Bommakal Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District. On 25.07.2005, the revision petitioners filed written statement. The suit is at the stage of recording evidence of revision petitioners.

5. Mr.Ghanshyamdas Mandani contends that the impugned order is completely illegal and unsustainable in as much as the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction and discretion vested in it, in permitting a party to introduce or exhibit a document. According to him, a witness is entitled to exhibit documents and the document now produced is in the custody of DW.2, therefore, DW.2 alone is competent to produce the document, refusal to permit production of document amounts to denying opportunity to revision petitioners to lead evidence on a crucial aspect which is an issue in O.S. No.62 of 2005. In other words, according to him, the permission for producing the document through DW.2 ought to have been granted and secondly Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not prohibit from producing a document by a witness. He relies on Ashok Sharma v. Ram Adhar Sharma, (2009) 11 SCC 47 for the proposition that a witness produced under Order 16 Rule 1-A can also produce the document in his custody. He relies on the following paragraphs.

11. Order XVI of the Code deals with summoning and attendance of witnesses. The Court under Order XVI Rule 1, on or before the date, may appoint but not later than 15 days after the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to p