JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the order dated 4.2.1993 of District Judge, Dewas, passed in Misc. Case No. 9/91, whereby the defendant applicant's application for getting a copy of the records produced by the plaintiff-non-applicant has been rejected. Brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-non-applicant filed a suit for recovery of 15,31,759-60 against the present defendant-applicants. During the proceedings zerox copy of the relevant documents were also filed by the plaintiff. Defendant applicant thereafter filed an application for direction that the copies of the same may be allowed to be taken or the plaintiff may be directed to furnish the copy. That application was rejected. Hence, this revision. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he wanted to have zerox copy at his own cost; but the same was refused by the Court. As against this, non-applicants submitted that the defendants have not resorted to Order 11 R. 15 in the strict terms. Order 11-Rule 15 CPC provides that if certain documents have been referred in the pleading and have been filed in the Court, the other party will have right to inspect them after giving notice. Such other party may ask for the production of original record for inspection and if that other party, i.e. defendant wants to have a copy of it that will be permitted. It arrears that the learned trial judge has overlooked that provision. However without entering into further niceties of law and technicalities, it is directed that the non-applicant shall file fresh application under Order 11 R. 15 for inspection of the document and thereafter if he asks for copy of the document, the same may be directed to be furnished to him at the cost of the defendant. This revision petition is disposed of as such with no order as to costs.