IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3596 OF 2009 Between : Mr. P.S. Santosh Kumari ....Petitioner A N D Ranjani and others. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3596 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the common order, dated 03.07.2009 passed in I.A. Nos. 808 and 809 of 2009 in O.S. No. 73 of 2007, ( in so far as it relates to I.A. No.808 of 2009, this revision is filed) on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. I.A. No.808 of 2009 is filed to reopen the suit and I.A.No.809 of 2009 is filed to issue summons to the Manager, State Bank of India, Secunderabad, to produce the cheques containing the signatures of the father of petitioner i.e. deceased for comparison with the signatures on the will Ex.B3. The trial court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the material available on record stated that there is no necessity of reopening the suit and to send the documents to the hand writing expert and basing on the material available on record, oral and circumstantial evidence, the genuineness of Ex.B3 can be decided. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ex.B3 was marked on 19.01.2009; that immediately the learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application to send the document to hand writing expert, along with two other documents, on the ground that the signatures on those two documents, which were marked as Exs.X1 and X2, are not comparable with the signatures on Ex.B3; that petition was dismissed as there is a time gap of more than two years between the date of execution of Ex.B3 and Exs.X1 and X2; that they are not sufficient and enough to be compared with the disputed signatures of Ex.B3; that on thorough search, the petitioner now came to know that the deceased presented a cheque in the month of June and July, 2000, which contain the signatures of the deceased, that the signatures found on these cheques are of 2000, they can be compared with Ex.B3 and therefore, he prays to give an opportunity to summon the Manager, State Bank of India, Secunderabad, to produce the cheques containing the signatures of the deceased. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that when respondent No.4/defendant No.4 filed written statement on 25.10.2007, specifically averring about the execution of the will by the deceased, no rejoinder was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff; and that to summon the documents is not permissible, and that at the stage of arguments this petition filed and therefore, at this belated stage the relief prayed cannot be granted. 5. Though respondent No.4 filed the will executed by the deceased i.e., Ex.B3, the same has not been filed into the court. So, there is no scope for the petitioner to know about the legality or correctness or validity of the said document. For the first time, Ex.B3 was produced in the court on 19.01.2009. So at that time only the petitioner ought to have came to know about the will said to have been executed by the deceased. Immediately, after that she filed an application to send the will along with tenancy certificates, which are marked as Exs.X1 and X2, for comparison of signatures to the expert. The trial court as well as this court dismissed the plea of the petitioner on the ground that the documents which contained the admitted signatures of the deceased person are not comparable with the will, hence the plea of the petitioner was rejected. 6. Now the learned counsel for petitioner contended that the contemporary documents which contained the signatures of the deceased person can be compared with the signatures of the will and therefore, the applications to reopen the suit and to summon the Manager, State Bank of India, to produce the cheques, said to have been filed by the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner is intentionally dragging the matter, even though the matter is coming up for arguments. In view of the fact that Ex.B3 was produced for the first time in the court on 19.01.2009, that immediately she filed an application, and that petition was dismissed on some other reason; and that after search, the petitioner traced the contemporary signatures available on the cheque in the State Bank of India, the request of re- opening the suit and to summon the Manager can be allowed. In view of the fact that the petitioner is not intentionally dragging the matter, the impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned common order. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J February 26, 2010. YVL