Judgment : These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the petitioners questioning the orders dated 18-12-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, in I.A. No.1184 of 2012 and I.A. No.1228 of 2012 respectively, in O.S. No.64 of 2008. 2. The respondents filed the above suit for recovery of money based on certain transactions against the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit. It is their case that one Cheekatla Ramakrishna, who is related to the petitioners, has signed on several invoices and the same were filed into the Court. With reference to the said invoices containing the signatures of Ramakrishna, the case of the petitioners is that the same are forged one. When the petitioners denied the signature of Cheekatla Ramakrishna on the said invoices by pleading forgery, the respondents have filed the present applications i.e., I.A. No.1184 of 2012 seeking to send the disputed signature of said Ramakrishna on Ex.A-163, for expert opinion, for comparison of the same with his admitted signatures, and I.A. No.1228 of 2012 to summon such Ramakrishna as their witness or witness of the Court in respect of various invoices. Both the applications were allowed by the trial Court vide impugned orders dated 18-12-2012. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred these revisions. 3. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material available on record. 4. It is submitted by Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the document under Ex.A-163 is a carbon copy, as such, the trial Court erred in allowing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act directing to send the disputed signature of Cheekatla Ramakrishna on the said document, for expert opinion, for comparison with the admitted signatures. It is further submitted that summoning of a third party as a Court witness can be at the discretion of the Court, but not on the application filed by the respondents. 5. With reference to the above submissions, this Court is of the view that such submissions are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. It is a matter of record that such invoices are produced by the respondents containing the signatures of Cheekatla Ramakrishna, who is related to the petitioners. 5. With reference to the above submissions, this Court is of the view that such submissions are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. It is a matter of record that such invoices are produced by the respondents containing the signatures of Cheekatla Ramakrishna, who is related to the petitioners. The petitioners did not deny their relationship with Ramakrishna, but his signatures are denied on Ex.A-163. It is true that Ex.A-163 is a carbon copy. But, as much as the very signature is denied on Ex.A-163, for comparison of the disputed signature of Ramakrishna with his admitted signatures, the said document, which is a carbon copy, can be looked into by sending the same for opinion of the expert since it is not a case of ascertaining the age of the document or ink, but it is only an information sought for as to whether the document under Ex.A-163 contains the signature of Ramakrishna or not. More so, when Ramakrishna is not a party defendant to the suit and it is the case of the respondents that such documents/invoices are signed by Ramakrishna on behalf of the petitioners, and in view of the stand of the petitioners that such signature on Ex.A-163 is a forged one, nothing wrong in the order passed by the trial Court to call for such Ramakrishna as a witness. Further, ultimately it is for the Court to decide to summon a third party as a witness of the Court or not, but it is always open for the parties to bring it to the notice of the Court to summon such witness to resolve the issues involved in the suit having regard to the pleadings. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these Civil Revision Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself. As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.