THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.2955 of 2010 C.R.P.(SR).No.16895 of 2010 And C.R.P.(SR).No.16898 of 2010 BETWEEN: Dr. K. Madhusudana Rao, S/o.late Veerabhadra Rao Working in MIMS Medical College, Vizianagaram. R/o.D.No.3-17-46/1, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam City. PETITIONER (in all the CRPs) AND 1. Kuppili Suryanarayana Reddy S/o. Sydelli Reddy, R/o.D.No.46- 5-6/1, Upstairs, Gowri Parameswara Nilayam, Pulivari Street, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam, and others. RESPONDENTS (in all the CRPs) Counsel for Petitioner: Sri K. Someswara Kumar Counsel for Respondent: N.A. The Court made the following order: COMMON ORDER: These revision petitions, are directed against the order dated 28.04.2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in I.A.Nos.946, 947 & 948 of 2010 in O.S.No.1134 of 2008. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed the above suit for specific performance directing defendants 1 to 7 to execute a regular sale deed in his favour and in favour of defendants 8 to 15 in respect of the plaint schedule property at their expenses. During the pendency of the suit, he filed I.A.No.946 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for sending the partnership deed, dated 18.08.2003 and two sale deeds standing in favour of V. Venkata Rao and P. Ananthakumar, for the opinion of the hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures of late M.S. Reddy on those three documents; I.A.No.947 of 2009 under Order 16 Rule 6 C.P.C., for issuing summons to 1) V. Venkata Rao, S/o. late V. Pydithalli, 2) P. Ananthakumar, for producing original sale deeds executed by M.S. Reddy in their four for comparison with Ex.A.1; and I.A.No.948 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C., to reopen the suit for the purpose of summoning the sale deeds of V.Venkata Rao and P. Ananthakumar. The defendants opposed the applications by filing counter. The trial Court observed that the said V. Venkata Rao and P. Anantha Kumar, who are purchasers from M.S. Reddy, are third parties, and the petitioner wants to call for the documents belonging to the third parties, who are no way concerned to the present suit. Since the said sale deeds are not public documents and not connected to the present suit, sending the documents belonging to the third parties for comparison to the expert, is not just and proper. Further, the genuineness of the documents, which are being called for and how far they are true and valid, is also not known. Since the said documents are not related to the present suit, subjecting the third parties for cross-examination is beyond the scope of the suit and as such, the petitioner is not justified in seeking the said relief, particularly, for sending the document to the expert for comparison with disputed document, and accordingly dismissed the applications. It is settled proposition of law that any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence; and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same. In the instant case, the documents, which are sought to be summoned, are belonging to third parties, who are no way concerned to the present suit and the said sale deeds are also not public documents. Therefore, the court below has rightly dismissed the applications by giving cogent and convincing reasons, which do not warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 16th July, 2010 Js.