APHC010409712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty Seventh day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: Budagajangam Badiga Sunkanna M Mareppa Counsel for the petitioner: 1. G Mani Kumar Counsel for the respondent: 1. S V Ruthvik The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty Seventh day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.2210 of 2024 Budagajangam Badiga Sunkanna ...Petitioner AND ...Respondent etitioner: espondent: The Court made the following: [3311] ...Petitioner ...Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2210 of 2024 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 01.08.2024, dismissing I.A.No.446 of 2024 in O.S.No.529 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the defendant under Order XVI rule 6 and Section 151 CPC to direct the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank), Park Road, Kurnool, to produce the memorandum of deposit of title deeds before the Court in original for sending the same to expert’s opinion in order to trace out the genuineness of the signature as to the exhibit A1, agreement of sale in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 16.05.2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in brief, is as follows: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against petitioner/defendant for enforcement of the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed by the petitioner on 16.05.2015. The suit stood posted to 04.10.2023 for defendant’s evidence. He never executed the agreement of sale. There is rivalry between the family of the petitioner and the family of Sirivati Kasanna and in order to take revenge against the petitioner, Siririvati Kasanna created not only this agreement of sale said to be executed by the petitioner in favour of his son-in-law but also another agreement of sale said to be executed by his father in favour of his brother, Siravati Ramanjaneyulu, and filed suits against the petitioner and his father with all false allegations in order to grab the properties. The said Sirivati Kasanna, after knowing the execution of registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds by the petitioner in 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2210 of 2024 favour of the erstwhile Corporation Bank, Kurnool under document No.4262/2015, dated 05.06.2015, created an agreement of sale, dated 16.05.2015, in favour of his son-in-law. He never affixed his signature on the alleged agreement of sale. Hence, there is every need to send the document for opinion of the expert. Therefore, he filed this petition praying to direct the Bank Manager, Park Road, Kurnool, to produce the memorandum of deposit of title deeds before the court in original for sending the same to expert’s opinion in order to find out the genuineness of the signature on exhibit A1, agreement of sale in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on16.05.2015. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition and stating that in fact, the petitioner executed exhibit A1, agreement of sale, in favour of the respondent on 16.05.2015. Thereafter, with a mala fide intention, the petitioner secured loan from the Corporation Bank by mortgaging the petition schedule property. The petitioner marked the said mortgage deed as exhibit B1. Therefore, there is no need to summon the witness since the mortgage deed itself is created with a mala fide intention after execution of exhibit A1, agreement of sale. The petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that there are no grounds to permit the petitioner/defendant to send for the original memorandum of deposit of title deeds from the Union Bank of India, Kurnool. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document proposed to be summoned is very much required to prove the genuineness of the signature on exhibit A1, but the trial court erroneously dismissed the petition. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2210 of 2024 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the trial Court. 8. As the petitioner sought original memorandum of deposit of title deed for the purpose of comparing the disputed signature on the suit document, filing a certified copy of the same would not serve the purpose. So, the observation of the trial Court to decline the relief on the basis of certified copy filed is inappropriate. But, since the document sought to be summoned is a memorandum of deposit of title deeds, which is in the custody of the Bank, the petitioner has to first satisfy compliance of Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act. 9. In view thereof, the petitioner has to show that the witness to be summoned had given consent for production of the document. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that first summon may be issued and in any event, if the witness objects, the relief may be rejected or else the relief may be granted subject to the consent of the witness. 10. Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: “130. Production of title-deeds of witness, not a party. No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims.” 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.2210 of 2024 11. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the relief presupposes consent. Therefore, the argument advanced in this regard cannot be accepted. For want of consent, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief. So, even without going into the other merits, there is no need to interfere with the result in the impugned order. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 27-03-2025 RAR