HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4370 of 2008 ORDER: The order of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A. No.1505 of 2008 in O.S. No.1003 of 2006 dated 09.09.2008, is under challenge in this revision petition by the petitioners- defendants. The respondent-plaintiff filed the said I.A., under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, to call for the acquaintance registers of the petitioners-defendants and their late father Sri V. Rajaiah, from different departments for the relevant years, and the entire case file in O.S. No.665 of 2001, in order to compare the signatures of the petitioners-defendants on those registers with that of Exs.A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.12. The Court below noted that the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for perpetual injunction; the agreement of sale was executed by the father of the petitioners-defendants in favour of his vendor; a supplementary agreement of sale was also signed by the petitioners-defendants; their father had also signed in Urdu; during cross-examination DWs.1 and 2 had denied execution of the agreement of sale as well as the supplementary agreement, their signatures, and execution of the agreement of sale, by their father; the respondent herein (petitioner in the I.A.) wanted to call for the original acquaintance registers containing the admitted signatures of the father of the petitioners-defendants, and those of the petitioners-defendants from different departments for comparison by the Court; and, if necessary, to note the facts in O.S. No.665 of 2001. The Court below held that, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, if the Court considered it necessary it would compare the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures; in the present case the respondent-plaintiff sought for production of the acquaintance register for comparison of the admitted and the disputed signatures by the Court; and no prejudice would be caused if the documents were called for. The I.A. was allowed directing that the registers and the entire file in O.S. No.665 of 2001 be called for on payment of process. Sri J. Venkateswara Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the respondent-plaintiff could as well have applied for certified copies of the documents; it is only on such an application being made, and in case certified copies were not furnished, could he seek production of the original documents; and, in as much as the affidavit filed in support of the I.A, does not make any reference to any such application, for furnishing of certified copies, having been made the respondent- plaintiff was not entitled to call for the original acquaintance register or the records in O.S. No.665 of 2001. Under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC, the Court may send for papers from its own records or from other Courts. Under sub-rule (1) thereof, the Court may on its own motion, and may in its discretion, upon the application of any of the parties to a suit, send for, either from its own records or from any other Court, the record of any other suit or proceeding, and inspect the same. Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice relates to production of records in the custody of a Public Officer other than a Court. As such the order of the Court below directing that the case file in O.S. No.665 of 2001 be summoned does not fall under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice as the records in the suit is in the custody of the Court. Under Rule 129(3), no Court shall issue summons unless it considers the production of the original necessary, or is satisfied that the application for a certified copy has been duly made and has not been granted. Rule 129(3) is in the alternative and provides for two eventualities. The first where the Court itself considers it necessary to have the original records produced and secondly, in the alternative, if it is satisfied that on an application, for certified copies being furnished, having been made, the certified copies had not been granted. Making an application for furnishing the certified copies, and failure of the Public Officials to make available such certified copies, is not a condition precedent for summons to be issued for production of the records in as much as the Court is empowered, under Rule 129(3) of the Civil Rules of Practice, to issue summons if it considers the production of the original necessary. In the case on hand, the Court below has recorded its satisfaction that production of such records is necessary. It also held that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein if the documents, as sought for, were called for. Exercise of the power to issue summons, either under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC or under 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, is discretionary and the Court below has exercised its discretion to call for the original records to compare the signatures. This Court, in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would be loathe to interfere with the exercise of such discretion save patent illegality or manifest injustice being caused. Neither of such eventualities arise in the case on hand necessitating interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:17-06-2010 usd