HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2541 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.164 of 2006 in the Court of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, against the deceased-first petitioner for recovery of certain amount. The first petitioner died and petitioners 2 and 3 are brought on record as his legal representatives. The trial of the suit is said to be in progress. The petitioners filed I.A.No.77 of 2011 with a prayer to send for the original promissory note dated 25.08.2003 in O.S.No.172 of 2006 pending in the Court of III Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram. It was pleaded that both the promissory notes that are mentioned in the two suits referred to above are executed in the similar fashion by using six blank promissory notes signed by the deceased-first petitioner. The effort of the petitioners appears to prove that the promissory notes were not genuine. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 15.04.2011. Hence, this Revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. While O.S.No.164 of 2006 was filed by the respondent herein, O.S.No.172 of 2006 was filed by his wife. Though both the suits were instituted in the same Court, it appears that they have been allotted to different Fast Track Courts by the learned Principal District Judge. It is no doubt true that a civil Court can send for a document which is part of record before another court, in exercise of the power under Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C., in case, it is found that it is relevant for adjudication of the dispute in a suit pending before it. However, if it becomes necessary to express view or record a finding with reference to a document which is called for, a cautious approach is to be adopted. The finding expressed by such a Court would lead to several complications in adjudication of the proceedings by the Court from which it was called for. For this and other relevant reasons, the trial Court dismissed the application. If the petitioners are so advised they can take steps to get both the suits heard by one and the same Court so that the possibility of the different views being taken on similar circumstances be avoided. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to take steps to seek transfer of one of the suits referred to above to a Court where the other suit is pending. The Court of VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, shall adjourn the matter by 15 days to enable the petitioners to take necessary steps. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 08th July 2011 DR