THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1784 & 5190 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the orders passed in the Interlocutory Applications in the same suit, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The respondent/plaintiff, who instituted O.S.No.23 of 2007 on the basis of a pronote, filed I.A.No.112 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A.1, Exs.A.5 and A.8 to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures on Ex.A.1 with that of Exs.A.5 and A.8. Ex.A.1 is the pronote, Ex.A.5 is the postal acknowledgment in the suit summons and Ex.A.8 is the bond executed with the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (PACS), Krishna. The plaintiff admitted about his obtaining loan from PACS. The Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, by order dated 17.03.2009, allowed the said I.A and sent the documents to the Expert holding that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant and that the report of the Expert will be helpful in coming to a right conclusion. Questioning the same, the petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P.No.1784 of 2009. The respondent/plaintiff also filed I.A.No.591 of 2009 in the said suit for summoning the Manager of Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Ghantasala Branch, Ghantasala to produce the withdrawal vouchers of loans signed by the defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A, it is stated that in the cross-examination the defendant admitted that he borrowed money from PACS, Kodali and executed the documents in its favour and that as the Handwriting Expert asked for genuine signatures along with other signatures, it is necessary to produce the said documents. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge, by one line order allowed the I.A. and ordered to issue summons to the witness, on 05.09.2009. Questioning the same, the petitioner/defendant filed C.R.P.No.5190 of 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contends that when the petitioner denied the signatures on Exs.A.5 and A.8, which are of the year 2006 and not contemporary, the said documents cannot be send to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with Ex.A.1. He further contends that summoning of the Manager of the Bank will not serve any purpose when the signatures on Exs.A.5 and A.8 were denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the cause in C.R.P.No.1784 of 2009 does not survive since pursuant to the order impugned in the said C.R.P, Exs.A.1, A.5 and A.8 were already sent for comparison to the Handwriting Expert, who accordingly submitted a report stating that the signatures on Exs.A.5 and A.8 cannot be comparable with Ex.A.1. The petitioner filed I.A.No.591 of 2009 for summoning the Manager of Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited to produce the documents. On 05.09.2009, the petition was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 08.09.2009. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned thrice. On 07.10.2009, the witness was present in the Court and requested to get permission from his higher officials to produce the originals and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 21.10.2009. Thereafter also the matter was adjourned twice as the witness was absent. At that stage, C.R.P.No.5190 of 2009 is filed. Having regard to the fact that the Handwriting Expert has already given his report after comparing Ex.A.1 with that of Exs.A.5 and A.8 pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.112 of 2009, nothing survives for adjudication in C.R.P.No.1784 of 2009 and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the report of the Handwriting Expert, he is at liberty to file objections to the said report. Coming to C.R.P.No.5190 of 2009, mere summoning of the Manager of the Bank for production of the documents will not attain finality. It is for the Court to receive the documents to be submitted and mark the same. Even if the said documents are being produced and marked and the suit is decided against the petitioner based upon the said documents, the same is capable of correction in appeal. Therefore, at this stage, the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing I.A.No.591 of 2009 does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. C.R.P.No.5190 of 2009 is accordingly dismissed. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 11.02.2011 va