THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :5266 of 2007 DATED:27.06.2011 Between: Sk.Mastan & 6 others. ..... PETITIONERS And Sunkau Bala Venkata Subba Rao & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10.09.2007, in I.A.Nos.1206 & 1207 of 2007 in O.S.No.76 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioners herein-defendants 1 to 7 to reopen their evidence and to issue summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad to give evidence, were dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants 1 to 7. None appeared for the 1st respondent though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioners herein for recovery of certain amount due under a promissory note-Ex.A1 said to have been executed by one Khadar Basha. Petitioners herein are stated to be the legal representatives of the said Khadar Basha. Petitioners filed a written statement contending that the suit promissory note is a forged document. The trial of the suit commenced. After the closure of the defendants’ evidence, they filed I.A.No.1206 of 2007 for reopening their evidence and I.A.No.1207 of 2007 for summoning the Branch Manager of the State Bank of Hyderabad to produce the promissory note which is said to be containing the admitted signature of the said Khadar Basha for the purpose of comparison of the signatures contained on the said document with the signatures on the disputed suit promissory note-Ex.A1 by the hand writing expert. It is not disputed that the said promissory note to be summoned was executed twenty two years prior to the execution of the suit promissory note. The said document is therefore not of contemporaneous in nature. Earlier, petitioners filed another application for summoning the L.I.C. policy containing the signature of the said Khadar Basha from the L.I.C. office. As there was a long lapse of twenty years between the signature on the L.I.C. policy and the signature on the suit promissory note, the said application was dismissed. The present application is filed seeking issuance of summons for production of the document, which was executed twenty two years prior to the execution of the suit promissory note. As the document sought to be summoned through the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, is not of contemporaneous in nature and is executed more than twenty years prior to the execution of the suit promissory note, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. The impugned order is not liable to be set aside. 4. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 27th June, 2011. Tsy