THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:5671 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2009 in I.A.No:506 of 2009 in O.S.No:69 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. He filed I.A.506 of 2009 in O.S.No:69 of 2007 under order 13 rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C seeking to call for the original suit document i.e., original promissory note marked as Ex.A1 in O.S.No:68 of 2007, for the purpose of the present suit. Taking into consideration the averments in the petition filed by the petitioner and the counter filed by the respondent, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition is filed at the belated stage. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has committed error in dismissing the application instead of sending the suit documents for the opinion of the Finger Print Expert. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of this Court reported in PIDIKITI SASIKALA V. KOTHAMASU LAKSHMI MOHANRAO @ MOHANARAO ([1]) wherein it is held by this Court as under: “Order 13 rule 10 of C.P.C amply contemplates that the Court has discretion to send for either from its own record or from any other Court. This itself sufficiently narrates the power to make an exercise even in regard to the document or record from other Court and in spite of the fact that those documents are not in the custody of its own. In view of the same, necessarily, it follows that wherever such exercise is to be done and if warrants, on the facts and circumstances, both the provisions viz., Rule 10(A) of order 26 or rule 10 of order13 C.P.C have to be read together. That apart, rule 10 (A) of order 26 C.P.C cannot stand alone on its own without falling back to the basic procedural aspect as contemplated under the various other provisions of the Code. The entire Code is one and the different provisions made thereunder are only to aid the parties in making a fair trial with ample powers, authority and jurisdiction. It the aforesaid circumstances, it has tobe held that the Court while exercising the powers for the purpose of any commission or sending for expert opinion, the same can as well be exercised even in respect of the document which is not in custody of its own.” The facts of the case in the above decision are that the revision petitioner who is the decree holder seeks to assail the order passed in E.A.No:367 of 2008 in E.A.No:562 of 2002 in E.P.No:20 of 2002 in O.S.No:316 of 1987 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior CivilJudge, Guntur, dated 27.1.2009 dismissing the application filed by him under order 26 rule 10 (A) C.P.C read with section 45 of the Evidence Act wherein he sought for a direction to send Ex.B66 in O.S.No:66 of 1982 to be considered with the disputed signature of Ex.A1 which is an agreement of sale dated 14.3.1980 executed by the judgment debtor in favour of his sister, for opinion of the Handwriting Expert regarding of the signatures of the notary of Kodali Venkata Ratnam Chowdary. The provisions of Order 13 rule 10 of C.P.C makes it clear that it is the discretion of the Court to send for either from its own record or from any other Court. As can be seen from the above judgment, it was a case where there was disputed signature of Ex.A1 and the said signature was sought tobe compared with the document in another suit proceedings. Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, it appears that the whole case of the petitioner is that he executed the documents. But, his case is that he did not mention about the interest and the date and that the plaintiff got filled up the interest column and date in the three promissory notes. In this regard, the case of the petitioner is rejected by the trial Court solely on the ground that his approach to the Court is at a belated stage. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned in the above decision are not akin to that of the case on hand and as such, the principles laid down by this Court in the above decision, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The case of the petitioner was that he filed a common written statement in both the suits contending that the respondent-plaintiff fabricated the three pronotes by filling up the columns of interest and date. He also stated in the written statement that he executed the three promissory notes without mentioning the particulars as to the interest and date. The respondent-plaintiff filed the counter in I.A.506 of 2009 inter alia contending that with a view to drag on the matter on one pretext or the other, the petition is filed. It is also stated that the suit is coming up for defendant’s side evidence and several adjournments were taken by the defendant. But, he is not entering into the witness box to face the cross examination. Therefore, filing the present petition at that stage of the proceedings, is not maintainable and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. There is no dispute that the suit is of the year 2007 and the written statement was filed and the issues were framed and the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was completed and the chief examination affidavit of the defendant was also filed and when the suit is posted for cross examination of the defendant, the petitioner filed the petition in I.A.506 of 2009. No reasons have been assigned by the petitioner as to why he could not file the application of this nature at the earliest point of time. There is no dispute as to the stage of the suit, which is coming up for cross examination of defendant and having taken several adjournments for his cross examination, the defendant filed the present petition. Therefore, I do not see any bonafides on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court below by filing I.A.506 of 2009 at a belated stage. In this view of the matter, the question of exercising the discretion as contemplated under order 13 rule 10 C.P.C does not arise in the instant case. The reasons that were given by the learned trial Court that the application was filed at a belated stage only with a view to drag on the proceedings, cannot be found fault and consequently, the order impugned, does not suffer from any legal infirmities or irregularities. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 21.12.2009 gurc. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:5671 OF 2009 Dated 21ST DECEMBER,2009. [1] 2009 (6) ALD 519