HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4813 OF 2009 DATE:14-10-2011 BETWEEN Dega Uma Devi …Petitioner AND Teluguntla Sudhakara Rao …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4813 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. I have perused the material available on record. In the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein for recovery of amount based on a pronote allegedly executed by the petitioner’s husband-Suresh Babu, petitioner herein, who is defendant in the suit, filed an application in I.A.No.250 of 2009 under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C. for summoning the Branch Manager of Andhra Bank, Sullurpet Branch, Nellore District for production of current account opening form of Account No.259 standing in the name of M/s. Agro Rythu Seva Kendra, Proprietor D. Suresh Babu before the Court below for the purpose of comparison of signatures of Dega Suresh Babu with the alleged suit promissory note and to send the same to the expert opinion. By the impugned order dated 7.9.2009 the lower Court dismissed the said application holding that no substantial proof was filed by the petitioner in respect of the Current Account No.259, Andhra Bank, Sullurpet Branch much less the date of opening of the said account number, and that unless the said particulars are furnished with relevant information including the documentary proof in respect of the said account, petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Admittedly, in the written statement filed by the petitioner, she took a plea that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery one and it does not signed by her late husband. When the plaintiff-respondent herein filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, the petitioner herein filed the impugned I.A. Only on summoning the said document, it will be known whether that document is contemporary to the suit promissory note and on ascertaining the same, necessary steps will be taken to send the suit promissory note to the expert for comparison of the signature of the suit promissory note with the signature appearing on the account opening form. In that view of the matter, the lower Court committed illegality in rejecting the impugned I.A. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. I.A.No.250 of 2009 is allowed to the extent for production of the current account opening form of Account No.259, Andhra Bank, Sullurpet Branch, Nellore District standing in the name of M/s. Agro Rythu Seva Kendra, Proprietor D. Suresh Babu. On such production of the document, parties are at liberty to proceed further in the matter. The revision is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2011 Tsr.