THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.774 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 28.01.2009, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District, dismissing the application I.A.No.635 of 2008 in O.S.No.70 of 2003, filed under Order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking production of registered sale deed filed in O.S.No.14 of 2006, pending on the file of the Court below, to the present suit i.e., O.S.No.70 of 2003, for sending the same to the hand writing expert for comparison. 3. Petitioner is plaintiff No.6, respondents 1 to 9 are defendants and respondents 10 to 18 are plaintiffs 1 to 5 and 7 to 10, in the present suit O.S.No.70 of 2003. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale, executed by one Mr.Parvathalu, the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 5. 4. It appears, the defendants have filed written statement alleging that the suit agreement of sale is a forged document and the alleged disputed document was not executed by one Parvathalu; that the said registered sale deed was executed about more than 30 years ago; that the first attester appears to have suffering from mental illness and the second attester died and since the defendants had taken the plea of forgery, the burden is on them to prove the disputed document. 5. On the other hand, the petitioner, who is plaintiff No.6, has been very much relying on the said document in order to establish the execution of the agreement in the suit, by causing production of the registered sale deed filed in O.S.No.14 of 2006. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, plaintiff No.6, that the said registered sale deed filed in O.S.No.14 of 2006 contains the admitted signatures of late Parvathalu (husband of the first defendant). 7. The Court below, after considering the facts of the case, had gone into the merits of the case and after considering the contentions of the defendants, who contended that the registered sale deed filed in O.S.No.14 of 2006 does not contain the admitted signatures of late Mr.Parvathalu, in fact, even, in that suit, the defendants 1 to 3 herein were also defendants 1 to 3 therein, held that since the defendants therein did not admit the execution of registered sale deed, dated 01.02.1968, by late Parvathalu, it cannot be said that the signatures available on that document were admitted signatures of deceased Parvathalu, and so when the document do not contain the admitted signatures, no useful purpose will be served in causing production of the document from that suit to the present suit. 8. It was further pointed out by the Court below that in order to show that the registered sale deed filed in O.S.No.14 of 2006 contain the admitted signatures of late Parvathalu, the plaintiffs have not filed the copy of such document and that they even did not file a copy of written statement in O.S.No.14 of 2006, which was filed by the very same defendants 1 to 3, in the present suit, to show that the defendants have admitted the execution of the disputed document, dated 01.02.1968, by the late Parvathalu. 9. Therefore, the averment of the petitioners that the said document contains the admitted signatures of late Parvathalu was not established. In other words, if the signatures were admitted, the written statement would reveal about such admission. But, no such attempt was made in establishing, at least, prima facie, that there was an admission by the defendants in the earlier suit that the signatures of late Parvathalu on the registered sale deed in the other suit were admitted. 10. The Court below, after verifying the registered sale deed in O.S.No.14 of 2006 also, which was sought to be called for in the present suit to send the same to the expert for examination, found that there was no such admission by the defendants in the present suit, who are incidentally the defendants in O.S.No.14 of 2006 also. It does not disclose the fact that there was an admission by the defendants that the registered sale deed said to have been executed by late Parvathalu does contain the signatures and there was a specific admission to that effect by the defendants and when there was no admission by the defendants, the very purpose of filing the present petition by the petitioners-plaintiffs is of no consequence. 11. The Court below has recorded a finding that the defendants in the present suit, who are the defendants in the other suit, denied the signatures on the registered sale deed in O.S.No.14 of 2006 as that of late Parvathalu. In such a case, particularly in view of the consistent stand taken by the defendants, the signatures, even if found, on the registered sale deed filed in O.S.No.14 of 2006, cannot be treated as admitted signatures and in such a case, the petitioner is not justified in calling such signatures as “admitted signatures” and in which case, the purpose of filing the present application itself is defeated and it is a wasteful exercise. 12. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the Court below. 13. For the foregoing, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th February 2010 dr THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.774 of 2009 Dated: 26.02.2010 dr