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, moreo