ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.02.2017 in I.A. No. 595 of 2016 in O.S. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

2. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2 of 2013 has filed the petition under Order XVI Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to issue summons to the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Zilla Parishad Branch, Machilipatnam and the same was allowed by the Court below.

3. The parties in this revision are referred to as they are arrayed O.S. No. 2 of 2013 for the sake of convenience.

4. The brief facts which led to filing of this revision are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note dated 15.05.2011 executed by deceased Shaik Ali. The defendants resisted the suit claim by denying the signature of deceased Shaik Ali on the suit promissory note.

5. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 595 of 2016 to issue summons to the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Zilla Parishad Branch, Machilipatnam on the premise that during the lifetime of Shaik Ali, he opened bank account in Andhra Bank and in order to prove his case, the contemporaneous signatures of Shaik Ali have to be summoned from the Bank for comparison. The defendants filed counter pleading ignorance about the deceased Shaik Ali having account in Andhra Bank. The Court below after conducting enquiry, has allowed the petition holding that since the defendants denied the signature of Shaik Ali on the suit promissory note, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the same, as such it is proper and necessary to summon the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank for the said purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed the present revision.

6. Heard Sri. Rizwan Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the present petition is premature for the purpose of fishing out the evidence without discharging the initial burden of plaintiff. He submits that summoning the official witness is not necessary in a suit based on promissory note. He submits that the Court below ought to have dismissed the petition by holding that production of document is not necessary.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of the revision.

9. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments of learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

10. Admittedly, in a suit filed on the basis of promissory note the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of suit promissory note and when once the burden of proof is discharged by the plaintiff, the onus of proof shifts on the defendant to disprove the execution of the same. In the present case on hand, since the defendants denied the signature of deceased Shaik Ali on the suit promissory note, the plaintiff in order to discharge his burden of proof has moved the trial Court seeking to issue summons to the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank to produce account opening form, which contain his specimen signatures. Moreover, it is clear that as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act the Court can compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures to come to a conclusion. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in allowing the petition and the Court below has rightly allowed the petition. Further, even if the petition is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, as they always have an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Hence, this Court is the view that the impugned order is a well-considered one and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismisse