ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the docket order dated 08.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.100 of 2012 by the learned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. The petitioner – plaintiff filed O.S.No.100 of 2012 seeking the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, which was an open plot bearing No.1 in Survey No.258/C to an extent of 402.13 square yards situated at Thimmapur Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat, Hanumakonda Mandal, Warangal District.

3. The case of the petitioner – plaintiff was that he purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed document No.2494 of 2007 dated 27.02.2007 from one Shaik Sarwar Miya, S/o.Meera Saheb for a valid sale consideration with de facto delivery of the same. He was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property since the date of his purchase. His vendor Shaik Sarwar Miya purchased the said property from defendant No.4 through his registered General Power of Attorney (for short “GPA) holder Pothu Darshanam, S/o.Buchaiah through registered sale deed document No.3318 of 1993 dated 30.08.1993. The defendant No.4 was the pattadar and owner of land to an extent of Ac.1-09 guntas including the suit schedule property and he executed registered GPA in favor of Pothu Darshanam for his entire extent of land of Ac.1-09 guntas in Survey No.258/C of Thimmapur village. Subsequently, differences arose between the defendant No.4 and the GPA holder. The GPA holder sold Ac0-35 guntas in the same survey number to one Pothu Mahesh Babu and Pothu Mahesh Babu filed O.S.No.1860 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal for permanent injunction in respect of his purchased land and the same was decreed in his favor on 23.11.2010. In the said suit, the defendant No.4 in his written statement disputed execution of registered GPA in favor of Pothu Darshanam and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal sent the registered GPA to finger print expert for opinion and the finger print expert gave report that the thumb impressions on the registered GPA were of defendant No.4 herein. The said judgment became final, as no appeal was preferred against it. The defendants 4 and 6 having suffered the decree in O.S.No.1860 of 2006 were instigating other defendants to interfere in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

4. During the course of trial in the said suit, the defendants filed a petition to receive a deed of settlement – cum – understanding dated 12.06.2012 along with a petition under Order VII Rule 14(i)(a) of CPC. The affidavit was in printed format with blanks and the blanks were filled by the deponent. The printed format would disclose that the deponent i.e. the defendant No.3 Neelam Sanjeeva alias Sanjeevaiah could not file the same earlier, as he got the said document recently and the same was necessary to prove his case. The delay caused in filing the same was not wanton, but due to the said reason and prayed to condone the delay.

5. The plaintiff filed a counter to the said application raising objection that the document sought to be marked was a certified copy, which was filed in a criminal case, which would require stamp duty and penalty and that the document was inadmissible. The defendant No.3 ought to have taken permission from the Court to lead evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for filing a certified copy. No proper explanation was given by the petitioner – defendant No.3 for filing the said document at a belated stage and no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay and that the petitioner – defendant No.3 failed to explain as to how the said document was relevant and necessary for the proceedings of the case and that the petition was filed in a very casual manner.

6. The trial court on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel had passed the docket order on 08.03.2019, as such:

“Heard the