IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND (22ND) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.927 of 2009 Between: Shashi Soni … Petitioner And: Prem Prakash Agarwal … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.927 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.01.2009 in IA No.97 of 2008 in OS No.5 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC, seeking production of original application dated 19.07.1998, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for recovery of money. The defendant filed written statement, denying execution of the suit document. The petitioner sought to send the suit document to the hand-writing expert. The petitioner/plaintiff did not produce any documents, containing the signature of the defendant. He filed the present application to send for the document dated 19.07.1998, which according to the plaintiff, is a membership application submitted by the defendant to Rajasthan Seva Samaj, Kaghaznagar. According to the plaintiff, the defendant is a member of the said Samaj and he submitted an application seeking membership by signing the same in Hindi, but the defendant denied the same in the cross-examination and stated that he did not submit any such application. The plaintiff is also aware of the fact that in the cross-examination, the defendant as DW.1 denied to have submitted any such application, but still the plaintiff wants to send for the said document for the purpose of sending the same to the Handwriting expert along with the disputed suit document for comparison. The document dated 19.07.1998 sought to be sent for, is not an admitted document. When the defendant denied to have submitted any such application to the Seva Samaj, no useful purpose would be served by sending such a document for the purpose of comparison of the signature therein with that of suit document. If the suit document is sent to the handwriting expert along with the document containing admitted signature of the defendant, it may serve the intended purpose. When the suit document is disputed and the document sought to be sent along with the suit document for the purpose of comparison is also disputed, no purpose would be served by sending such document to the hand-writing expert. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the defendant has denied the signature on the application, still the plaintiff can prove the same to be that of the defendant and then sent the said document as proved document, though not as admitted document to the hand-writing expert. The plaintiff, therefore, seeks an enquiry to be conducted in to the genuineness or otherwise of the signature contained on the document dated 19.07.1998 and give a finding thereon and then send the said document to the handwriting expert. Even then, the said document remains to be a disputed document, but not an admitted document. Such an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the document dated 19.07.1998, which has nothing to do with the suit transaction, is wholly irrelevant and unwarranted. It is open to the plaintiff to secure and produce before the Court the document containing admitted signature of the defendant and seek to send the same along with the suit document to the hand-writing expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion. The impugned order dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff to send the document dated 19.07.1998 on the ground that it would not serve any useful purpose, as the same is not an admitted document, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 22.02.2011 bss