M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dt. 08.02.2018 in I.A. No. 919 of 2017 in O.S. No. 63 of 2009 of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. Petitioners are defendants in the above suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit against the petitioners/defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2. It is contended by the respondent/plaintiff that he purchased the properties from one V. Subbamma under registered sale deed dt. 07.03.2007 and has been in possession of the plaint schedule property, but the petitioners, who are strangers to the plaint schedule property and have no right title or interest in the property, are trying to dispossess him from the plaint schedule property.

3. Written statement was filed by the petitioners opposing the suit claim. In the written statement, a plea was raised that the said Subbamma had executed agreements of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property on 08.08.1996 in favour of father of the petitioners 2 & 3 and their uncles by name Muthyalaiah and Seetharamaiah after receiving sale consideration, that they were in possession of the property, and that subsequently two registered sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 on 20.04.2006 by the said Subbamma.

4. Thereafter the said suit was transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi and renumbered as O.S. No. 63 of 2009.

5. The respondent filed I.A. No. 706 of 2008 seeking amendment of the plaint seeking relief of declaration of his title and also a declaration that sale deeds dt. 20.04.2006 standing in the name of petitioners 2 and 3 are null and void, and are not binding on him. It was allowed on 20.04.2009.

6. An additional written statement was filed to the amended plaint by the petitioners stating that the allegations made against them are false. In the additional written statement they further pleaded that the respondent had made a complaint before the Director of Stamps and Registration for cancellation of petitioners' documents executed by V. Subbamma, that the said authority without conducting any enquiry and without having jurisdiction cancelled the same, that they approached this Court and this Court directed the authority to withdraw the said order of cancellation; and therefore the sale deeds obtained by the petitioners 2 and 3 stand good and binding the respondent.

7. It is also stated that the Sub-Registrar, Srikalahasthi lodged a complaint against the petitioners and their family members which was numbered as C.C. No. 254 of 2007. Thereafter, the trial was commenced and the trial was going on.

8. At that point of time, the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 919 of 2017 to further amend the plaint by adding paras 8 (a), (b) and (c). In these paragraphs, which are sought to be inserted in the amended plaint, the respondent sought to give details of criminal cases initiated by the office of sub-Registrar against the petitioners specifically taking plea that after filing of the suit, the respondent came to know about the fraud played by the petitioners in impersonating Subbamma, and the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 254 of 2007 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Srikalahasthi. He also adverted to the fact that the thumb impression of Subbamma found on the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 on 20.04.2006 were not identical with the specimen thumb impression of Subbamma, and that the petitioners 2 and 3 had created the said sale deeds, which were not actually executed by Subbamma, obviously by forgery and impersonation. He also referred to filing of supplementary charge sheet and other subsequent events including filing of O.S. No. 41 of 2012 against the respondent by the relatives of petitioners 2 and 3.

9. This application was opposed by the petitioners