ORDER

This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed on I.A. No.8 in O.S. No.217/2012 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere [for short, ‘the trial Court’], whereby the said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 of CPC seeking issuance of summons to the Head Master, Higher Primary School, Pamenahalli, Davanagere, South Zone to produce the documents mentioned in the application was rejected by the trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of the alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. The petitioner is son of one Rangaswamy B while the respondents-defendants are his family members. At the time of institution of the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff’s father Sri Rangaswamy B was arrayed as Defendant No.2 and he has entered appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement. It is needless to state that the vakalathnama of Sri Rangaswamy B and his written statement contain his signatures. Subsequently, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the instant application seeking issuance of summons to the Head Master, Higher Primary School, Pamenahalli, Davanagere, South Zone to produce the documents from the period 24.12.2012 to 24.01.2013 said to contain the signatures of Sri Rangaswamy B. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the disputed signatures of Sri Rangaswamy B as pleaded by the contesting respondents on Exhibits.D15 and Exhibit.D17 and since the documents sought to be summoned were post litem documents which had come into existence subsequent to the suit, the question of summoning the said documents at this belated stage would not arise. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting I.A. No.8, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the application [I.A. No.8] filed by the petitioner indicates that the petitioner intends to summoning of the documents said to have been signed by Sri Rangaswamy B for the purposes of comparing the signatures of Sri Rangaswamy B in the said documents i.e., disputed signatures in Exhibits.D15 and D17 which has already been marked in evidence. However, since the admitted signatures of the first respondent are already contained in his written statement and vakalathnama, in my considered opinion, the trial Court was fully justified in refusing to permit the petitioner to summon the said documents especially when there is huge gap between the date of the said documents Exhibits.D15 and D17 and the date on which the documents sought to be summoned subsequently signed by Sri Rangaswamy B. At any rate, it is open for the petitioner to file the application seeking comparison of the disputed signatures of Sri Rangaswamy B on Exhibits.D15 and D17 with his admitted signatures on the written statement and the vakalathnama which shall be considered by the trial Court after providing an opportunity to the defendants to file their objections in accordance with law.

5. Subject to the aforesaid liberty reserved in favour of the parties, the petition stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.