HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3593 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2008, in I.A.No.100 of 2008 in R.C.No.314 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC seeking to call for Exs.A.12, A.17, A.18, and A.23 filed in O.S.No.307 of 1998 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated by the petitioner that Exs.A.12, A.17, A.18, and A.23 filed in O.S.No.307 of 1998 contain the original signatures of PWs.1 and 2 herein, that when the certified copies of the said documents were confronted with PW.2, the same were denied by him and, therefore, the said exhibits are required for comparison of the signatures with the admitted signatures. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had filed it at the stage of respondents’ evidence only with a view to drag on the proceedings. 4. The Photostat copies of the documents now sought to be summoned have not been confronted with PW.1. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 10 of Order XIII allows the court upon an application of a party to the suit to call for the records and inspect them. Sub-rule 2 requires an application for calling for records to be supported by an affidavit showing how the records are material; and the production thereof is necessary. No where in the affidavit it is stated how the documents are material to the suit. 4. In view of the fact that the present application appears to have been filed only to drag on the proceedings, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. However, the Court below may consider the fresh application of the petitioner that may be filed if it comes within the ambit and scope of Sub- Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order XIII after completion of respondents’ evidence. It is made clear that the impugned order shall not come in the way of filing a fresh application. 5 . Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. K.C.BHANU J Date:16.11.2010 usd