IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4880 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Mahaboob Ali. ..... PETITIONER AND Khaja Begum. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4880 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 7.9.2009 in I.A.No.572 of 2009 in O.S.No.1804 of 2007 passed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1804 of 2007 for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant filed the above application under Rules 128 and 129 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to summon the original counter dated 6.8.2004 filed in M.P.No.846 of 2003 in M.C.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Judge, JHBBC-cum- Additional Family Court, Nampally and the original declaration of life filed by the defendant during the months of September and October 2004 before pension payment office, Banjarahills. It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that he married the plaintiff in the year 1971 and divorced in the year 1977 and he married another lady viz., Shahida Bano and through her, he got two daughters and for that reason, the plaintiff bore grudge against him and hatched up a plan and fabricated agreement viz., Ex.A1 by forging his signature and in order to establish the said forgery, the documents in question are required to be summoned for the purpose of comparison. The Court below having observed that it is for the defendant to apply for certified copies of documents and if the Court or Government Office failed to issue such certified copies, then the defendant is entitled for summoning documents and that the defendant failed to comply with the ingredients of Rule 129 Civil Rules of Practice, dismissed the application with costs. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that the Court below erred in observing that the petitioner-defendant has not followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 129 Civil Rules of Practice. She further contended that the certified copies of the documents in question would not serve the purpose for the reason that the admitted signatures in original should be made available for the purpose of comparison. I find some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant filed the above application seeking to summon the documents in question for the purpose of comparing the admitted signatures with that of the disputed one. In view of the fact that the admitted signatures in original should be made available for the purpose of comparison, I feel that the Court below is not justified in dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner-defendant can obtain certified copies and in case, the certified copies are not issued, then only the petitioner-defendant is entitled for summoning the documents from public office or court. Therefore, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order under revision. Consequently, I.A.No.572 of 2009 in O.S.No.1804 of 2007 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 30th October, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4880 OF 2009 30.10.2009