THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4066 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the interlocutory order, dated 26.02.2009 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad in I.A.No.53 of 2008 moved in O.S.No.100 of 2004. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed praying for a decree 1) declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the southern side of the suit land situated in Survey No.35/2 admeasuring Acs.2.21 guntas situated at Sirsanna Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District, 2) by recovering the possession of the suit land from defendant No.2, 3) to cancel the registered sale deed bearing document No.1597 of 2001, dated 29.06.2001, to the extent of Acs.2.21 guntas, and 4) for mesne profits over the suit land from 29.06.2001 @ Rs.12,500/- per year and the costs of the suit to be awarded. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the first defendant was his adopted father and hence, he has got half share in the properties held and owned by the first defendant father and since the first defendant father has alienated the suit land of an extent of Acs.2.21 guntas in favour of the second defendant without the consent of the petitioner/plaintiff, the above suit came to be instituted. In that suit, I.A.No.53 of 2002 has been moved seeking directions for calling the original joint account vide STDR-124341, dated 16.03.1999 from Sri Saraswathi Grameena Bank, Bela Branch and for marking it on behalf of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff and the first defendant have opened a joint account referred to supra and deposited a sum of Rs.23,000/- in a fixed deposit with the afore-mentioned bank on 16.08.1999. The said fixed deposit was to mature on 16.12.2004. Hence, the said record was suggested to be important to be exhibited to establish his relationship as the son of the first defendant. That application has been dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge vide his order, dated 26.02.2009. I have heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The claim made in the suit and the reliefs prayed for therein have no connection whatsoever with the fixed deposit receipt bearing date 16.08.1999, said to have been opened up by the petitioner/plaintiff along with the first defendant father. Even assuming for the sake of argument that such a fixed deposit receipt has been opened by the petitioner/plaintiff and the first defendant father jointly, it does not necessarily establish, much less conclusively, about the relationship that the petitioner/plaintiff and the first defendant are father and son or that the plaintiff has been adopted by the first defendant. The Bank will not be making any enquiries as to the inter se relationship between any two persons, who seek to open a fixed deposit with the bank. For a variety of reasons, a fixed deposit receipt can be obtained in joint names by more than one person, who are not necessary to be related to each other, and the banks have no authority or locus to determine any such relationship, even if they are otherwise related. Hence, summoning any such document from the bank concerned will not have any bearing on the suit claim. The suit claim will have to be established independent of any such document. If the petitioner/plaintiff is able to establish the fact that the first defendant has adopted him, even without there being any such fixed deposit receipt standing in their joint names, the suit claim will be determined. Therefore, either production or non-production of the document, which is sought to be summoned in I.A.No.53 of 2008, will not have any bearing on the issue to be tried in the suit. Therefore, the I.A. was rightly dismissed by the Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, meritless and it is dismissed, but, however, without costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 19th NOVEMBER, 2009. kvni