ORDER:

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner-plaintiff assailing the order, dated 26.09.2018, of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, passed in IA.No.513 of 2018 in OS.No.224 of 2015.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner – plaintiff [‘plaintiff’, for short] and of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- 1st defendant [‘1st defendant’, for short]. 2nd respondent - 2nd defendant is the Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation.

3. To begin with, it is to be noted that in a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff, which is being resisted by the defendant, the case of the plaintiff is that he is the tenant in the plaint schedule shops. 1st defendant is resisting the suit. During the course of trial, the plaintiff filed the instant application to grant leave to file attested true copy of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Roc.No.4228/2011/G1, dated 13.07.2015, and receive the same on file. The said application was resisted by the 1st defendant. On merits and by the order impugned, the trial Court dismissed the petition.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present revision.

4. The case of the plaintiff in support of the request afore-stated, in brief, is this: - ‘The 2nd defendant – Commissioner, Chittoor Municipal Corporation issued the aforesaid proceedings in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit property. The original served copy of the proceedings is filed by the plaintiff in CMA.no.21 of 2016 on the file of IX Additional District Court. On the disposal of the CMA the plaintiff preferred CRP.no.1976 of 2017 before this Court. Since the document is filed in the CMA the plaintiff obtained attested copy of the above said proceedings from the Town Planning Officer of the Municipal Corporation. The said document is an essential and crucial document to prove the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the instant Application is filed.’

5. Per contra, the case of the 1st respondent - 1st defendant is this:

‘The plaintiff suppressed the fact that he filed the present document along with a petition, on 23.09.2016, before the IX Additional District Court, Chittoor, viz., IA.no.14 of 2016 in CMA.no.21 of 2016. The said petition and the said CMA preferred by the plaintiff were dismissed on 21.12.2016. The Certified Copy of the petition and orders passed in IA.No.14 of 2016 and CMA.no.21 of 2016 are filed into Court for perusal of the Court. The present petition for receiving the copy of the very same document is not maintainable because a similar request was refused by the appellate Court. The plaintiff is a land grabber. His name was noted as rowdy sheeter, on 05.05.2010, in the list maintained by the II Town Police Station, Chittoor. In the CRP, this Court directed both parties to maintain status quo obtaining with regard to possession as on the date of passing of the said orders and till the disposal of the suit; and, directed the trial Court to proceed with the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. In order to drag on the matter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the Municipal Commissioner, Chittoor, as 2nd defendant and the same was allowed. Necessary amendment was carried out. Additional written statement of this defendant is filed. The plaintiff is somehow taking adjournments and dragging on the matter inspite of directions of this Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Even after filing of his chief affidavit, the plaintiff is wantonly dragging on the matter. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.’

6. The trial court dismissed the petition of the plaintiff observing in its order that except stating that the original served copy is filed in the CMA, no other valid reasons are given for granting leave to file the document and that the said CMA.no.21/ 16 was dismissed and the