THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.256 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 23.11.2010 in I.A.No.1192 of 2010 in O.S.No.664 of 2007 (common order was passed by the lower Court in I.A.Nos.1191 and 1192 of 2010 in O.S.No.664 of 2007) on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the original suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,000/- with interest thereon basing on a promissory said to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant denied the execution of the said document and filed an application to send the documents to the handwriting expert. The said application was allowed and the suit promissory note was sent to the handwriting expert. However, the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL), Hyderabad, returned the same on 15.05.2010 for admitted signatures of “A.U.Naidu” during the year 2004. After receipt of the said objection from APFSL, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.1192 of 2010 to receive two documents dated 17.03.2004 and 03.12.2004 purported to have been signed by him during the course of his employment. The petitioner/defendant is working in Railways. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the documents produced by the petitioner/defendant himself cannot be treated as admitted signatures, that they do not contain the signatures as ”A.U.Naidu” and that those documents are not coming from the proper custody. The lower Court observed that the said documents are not produced from the proper custody and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.1192 of 2010, vide order dated 23.11.2010. Challenging the said order, this revision has been filed. It is not in dispute that the alleged promissory note was sent to APFSL for comparing the same with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant and APFSL returned the same requiring the admitted signatures of A.U.Naidu during the year 2004. The petitioner/defendant ought to have filed an application before the lower Court requesting to summon the records of the year 2004 from the proper custody of his employer for sending the same to APFSL. Instead of adopting such procedure, the petitioner/defendant himself seems to have produced two documents before the lower Court by filing I.A.No.1192 of 2010 to receive the said documents. In the circumstances, the lower Court is justified in dismissing I.A.No.1192 of 2010 on the ground that the said documents are not produced from the proper custody. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the lower Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the petitioner/defendant may be permitted to file an application to summon the records from the proper custody of his employer for sending the same to APFSL. It is open to the petitioner/defendant to file such an application and it is for the lower Court to consider the same on merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 17th June, 2011 Note: Issue CC by 21.06.2011. (B/o) GHN