ORDER:

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 28.10.2021, dismissing I.A.No.116 of 2021 in I.A.No.93 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, filed under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC by the petitioner/ defendant No.1 to condone delay in filing the petition schedule documents and receive the said documents in evidence for the purpose of marking on his behalf.

2. Heard Sri K. Naga Phanindra, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/1st defendant. There is no representation for respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs. Though notice was served on respondent No.4/2nd defendant, no appearance is made. Respondent Nos.5 & 6 are shown as not necessary parties to this revision.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the present suit against the revision petitioner/1st defendant and others for cancelation of sale deeds executed by the defendant No.3 in favour of defendants 1 & 2 and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs have no share in the plaint schedule properties. They filed I.A.No.93 of 2021 seeking ad-injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 from alienating the schedule properties in favour of third party. The revision petitioner/1st defendant filed counter opposing the said petition. At the time of filing the counter, the 1st defendant could not file any documents, due to non availability of the certified copies. When the suit is posted for orders in the interlocutory application, the 1st defendant, having obtained certified copies of the relevant documents with regard to the plaint schedule property, came up with the present interlocutory application to receive the documents. The said documents are essential in order to prove his case and non-filing of the certified copies at the earliest point of time is neither intentional nor deliberate.

(b) The documents sought to be received through the present interlocutory application are:

1. Certified copy of order, dt.19.07.2010 in E.A.No.152 of 2008 in E.P.No.33 of 2007 in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.

2. Certified copy of order and decretal order, dt.17.07.2014, in A.S.No.53 of 2010 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

3. Certified copy of order and decretal order, dt.19.01.2018 in I.A.No.249 of 2015 in I.A.No.116 of 2014 in O.S.No.37 of 2008 on the fie of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur.’

4. The respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed counter opposing the petition. They contend that all the petition listed documents are unnecessary for deciding the case. I.A.No.93 of 2021 was filed praying for interim injunction not to alienate the schedule properties in favour of third parties till delivery of the final judgment in the suit. The plaintiffs have no objection to give an undertaking that they will not alienate the properties till the final judgment is delivered. The defendants 1 & 2 have bad intention and while pending the suit, they are trying to create documents. The matter is coming up for hearing I.A.No.93 of 2021 only. The trial in the suit has not yet commenced. There is no proper explanation for the delay and how the proposed documents are relevant for deciding I.A.No.93 of 2021. There are no bona fides to reopen the matter.

The petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On merits, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that there are no good grounds for condoning the delay for not filing the certified copies of the documents which are obtained much prior to filing of counter and that without proper reasons, delay cannot be condoned.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the revision petitioner/1st defendant had preferred this revision petition. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the trial Court ought to have seen that the petitioner already filed photost