THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. Nos.2059 and 2062 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 02.02.2010 passed by the V Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.Nos.350 and 351 of 2009 in O.S.No.32 of 2003. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, he filed the suit for specific performance of contract. During the course of evidence, the defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, did not answer with regard to the custody of Ex.A.6 though he made several averments in the written statement. Further, as per the Bank rules, the dishonored cheque has to be returned to the account holder only. Hence, he filed I.A.No.350 of 2009 to summon Bank Officials, Syndicate Bank, New Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad with the concerned record relating to Ex.A.6; and I.A.No.351 of 2009 to re-open the case to lead further evidence on his behalf. The Court below, after hearing the learned counsel on either side, and after perusing the entire material available on record, held that issuance of Ex.A.6-cheque dated 26.03.1997 is not in dispute since it was filed before the Court and marked in evidence; that since custody of cheque was already brought on record by way of evidence, summoning of bank officials is not warranted and that the plaintiff had already adduced evidence by examining himself as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3, summoning the bank officials to speak about the cheque under Ex.A.6 would lead to negative evidence, and accordingly dismissed both the Interlocutory Applications. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the impugned orders indicates that Ex.A.6-cheque issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was marked through the plaintiff only and that the custody of the cheque was already brought on record by way of evidence. Therefore, the Court below rightly held that summoning of bank officials is not warranted and it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by adducing evidence with regard to the payments made by him in support of his case. In the circumstances, the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by the Court below in dismissing the Interlocutory Applications does not suffer from manifest illegality. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date.14.06.2010 va