IMPORTANT POINT
The specific statutory bar under Sec. 130 of the Evidence Act prevails over general enabling provisions, and the petitioner cannot summon a document of title from a 3rd party without obtaining the written consent of the party in custody of the document.

JUDGMENT

1. A question whether a document of title kept by the petitioner/defendant with the mortgagee bank can be summoned from the bank without seeking the consent of the bank in writing to produce it, has cropped up in this matter.

2. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dtd. 28/9/2022, dismissing petition in I.A.No.158/2022 in O.S.No.165/2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu, by the defendent under Order XVI, Rule 6 and Sec. 151 of CPC seeking direction to wife of P.W.2, i.e., Nambri Vijaya Surya Kumari to produce the original registered sale deed dtd. 9/12/2013 registered at SRO, Sajjapuram, Tanuku, in order to send the same to a hand writing expert along with the suit promissory note for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner/defendant for opinion.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The defendant filed the written statement disputing the execution of the suit promissory note. Therefore, the defendant filed I.A.No.158/2022 stating that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery and the same has been created by Namburi Ramabhadraraju, who is the defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner herein vide O.S.No.66/2016, pending on the file of Court of Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. He furher stated that he filed a petition under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act to send the original suit promissory note to a hand writing expert by comparing the same with the admitted signatures of the petitioner available on the registered sale deed dtd. 9/12/2013, which was registered in the SRO, Sajjapuram, Tanuku, and the said petition was allowed by the Court giving direction to deposit Rs.5,000.00 for expenses of the expert, and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount in Court. The petitioner further stated that he filed another petition I.A.No.631 of 2019, requesting the Court to issue summons to the SRO, Sajjapuram, Tanuku, directing him to produce the thumb impression relating to the registered sale deed dtd. 9/12/2013, for the purpose of comparison of the admitted signatures therein with the disputed signature on the said promissory note, however, the said petition was dismissed on merits, and therefore, it is necessary to summon for production of the original registered sale deed dtd. 9/12/2013 which is in the custody of P.W.2 and his wife.

4. The petition was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter, denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the reasons stated by the petitioner cannot be accepted, and that the proceedings have been dragged on since 2017 and filing of this petition is yet another step to delay the suit for long time by misusing the provisions of law. It is further stated that the petitioner filed the earlier petition under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act even without having document in his hand and that when the petition was allowed, it is the duty of the petitioner to produce the relevant document. However, the petitioner failed to do so. It is also stated that if at all the petitioner wanted to file the petition, it would have been filed immediately, but the petitioner filed this petition when the matter was posted for arguments.

5. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the document is sought to be produced from the custody of the 3rd party, who cannot even be summoned either to give evidence or to produce any of her own document. It is also observed that it is the duty of the petitioner to produce any document having his admitted signature for the relevant period of the said promissory note. But, the petitioner did not do so.

6. Having aggrieved by the order, this Revision Petition was filed stating that dismissing I.A.No.158 of 2022 on the ground that the person sought to be summoned to produce doc