1. - These writ petitions are directed against separate orders dated 15.7.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Chittorgarh in Civil Suits No. 7/2003, 8/2003 and 9/2003, whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner-defendant for summoning the copy of his specimen signature available with the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. has been rejected.

2. Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are identical therefore, the same were heard together and are being decided by a common order.

3. The facts of the Writ Petition No. 6058/2008 arising from order dated 15.7.2008 in Civil Suit No. 8/2003 are being taken into consideration as a lead case.

4. The respondent-preferred a suit against the petitioner-defendant before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Chittorgarh under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short "C.P.C." hereinafter) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 45,000/- on the basis of a promissory note dated 5.3.2000. The petitioner- defendant preferred an application seeking leave to defend on the ground that the promissory note and the receipt on the strength of which the suit has been preferred, are forged documents and as a matter of fact, the defendant has not taken any loan from the plaintiff, as alleged. It is contended that had the defendant taken the loan from the plaintiff then, there was no occasion to execute three separate promissory notes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

5. The petitioner-defendant preferred an application in all the three suits separately before the learned trial Court praying that his alleged signature on the promissory notes and receipts may be got examined by an expert. The applications preferred were allowed by the learned trial Court by order dated 5.1.2007 passed in each case separately. Accordingly, it was ordered that the defendant shall produce list of the registered hand-writing experts so that an appropriate person may be appointed for the purpose.

6. On being approached by, the petitioner, one Dr. Dinesh Sethi, Documents Examiner and Forensic Consultant, consented for giving his opinion vide letter dated 4.12.2007 inter alia stating that he would require attested photostat copies of the promissory note and receipts and also signatures of the petitioner herein on six papers containing plain signatures with fast, medium and slow speed and would also require at least five old signatures. The fee as demanded by the expert was) deposited by the petitioner.

7. For the purpose of providing old signature, the petitioner submitted a registered sale deed dated 21.3.2008 which bears his signature. However, for old signature, the petitioner-defendant submitted an application before the learned trial Court stating therein that his old signatures are available with the Rajasthan Bank Limited, Chittorgarh Branch, Chittorgarh where he is maintaining an account bearing No. 1017114 since the year 1995. It was further submitted that the bank officers are not ready to provide the copy of his specimen signatures without an appropriate order by the Court, accordingly, it was prayed that the concerned bank may be directed to make available attested copy of the petitioner's signatures.

8. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order impugned observing that the original specimen signature cannot be obtained from the bank. That apart, the learned Court opined that the specimen signatures cannot be said to be a document which can be summoned by the Court.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court has already allowed the application preferred by the petitioner for examination of his signature by a hand-writing expert and as opined by the hand-writing expert Dr. Dinesh Sethi for the purpose of comparison of the disputed signature, the copies of the document bearing his old signature are necessary. The learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner's signature