IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1931 OF 2011 Between: A.Illavarasu …Petitioner A n d A.Arunmoli …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1931 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is ﬁled impugning the order dated 16.03.2011 in I.A.No.39 of 2011 in O.S.No.9 of 2003, on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said application ﬁled by the respondent herein under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC for issuance of summons to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Tirupati to produce income tax returns submitted by the 2nd respondent S.A.Anandan for the assessment years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 pertaining to Ananda Textiles & Readymades, Chittoor, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the petitioner, he is the sole legal heir of his deceased father S.A.Anandan by virtue of Will dated 03.02.2006. The 1st respondent herein, the defendant, is disputing the genuineness of the said Will. The burden squarely likes on the petitioner/plaintiﬀ to prove the Will propounded by him. However, the 1st respondent herein ﬁled four applications under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC for issuance of summons for production of certain documents said to be containing the admitted signatures of the deceased Anandan for the purpose of comparison by the Court. It is stated that I.A.Nos.38 and 40 of 2011 were not opposed but the other two I.A.Nos.37 and 39 of 2011 were opposed by the petitioner. In I.A.No.37 of 2011, the 1st respondent sought issuance of summons to the Branch Manager, Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Chittoor to produce the account opening form of M/s Ananda Textiles and Readymades and also the cheques issued of its current account from 15.01.2006 to 15.02.2006. In I.A.No.39 of 2011, the 1st respondent/defendant sought issuance of summons to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Tirupati to produce income tax returns submitted by the 2nd respondent S.A.Anandan for the years 2002- 2006. By the impugned common order, both the applications were allowed. The order pertaining to I.A.No.37 of 2011 has become ﬁnal, as the same is not challenged. However, the present civil revision petition is ﬁled impugning the order passed in I.A.No.39 of 2011. The main objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiﬀ is that the 1st respondent is seeking production of the income tax returns with an oblique motive since another suit for rendition of accounts is pending. 4. In the impugned order, the learned I- Additional District Judge has observed that the documents are permitted to be summoned only for the purpose of comparison of the admitted signatures with the disputed signature in the Will. Thus, when the purpose of permitting the said documents to be summoned is limited only for comparison of signature contained therein of S.A.Anandan with his signature on the Will, the apprehension of the petitioner that the documents may be put to misuse, is without any basis. It is always open to the trial Court to compare the signatures on the disputed Will with those contained on the admitted documents and the trial Court has in its discretion permitted issuance of summons for production of documents, including the income tax return which are contemporaneous in nature. There is no warrant for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No prejudice or hardship would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiﬀ by production of the documents which are permitted to be summoned. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, allowing I.A.No.39 of 2011, does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 18th November, 2011 Lrkm.