HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP.MP.No.6704 of 2009 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3495 of 2008 Between: M.Chandramohan and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND G.Swarupa and others. .....RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP.MP.No.6704 of 2009 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3495 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2008 passed in I.A.No.2734 of 2008 in O.S.No.329 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs to receive the certified copies of the documents detailed therein. The respondents entered appearance through counsel. The petitioners filed CRP.MP.No.6704 of 2009 with a prayer to expedite the hearing of the revision petition. The respondents did not choose to oppose and the same has been allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The case has a chequered career. The petitioners filed O.S.No. 572 of 1989 on the file of the 14th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in respect of Ac.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.29 of Teegalaguda Village. The petitioners-plaintiffs succeeded in the suit. Thereupon, the defendants filed A.S.No. 249 of 1996 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal came to be allowed. Thereupon, the petitioners-plaintiffs carried the matter in second appeal being S.A.No. 523 of 2001. The second appeal came to be allowed in part to the extent of Ac.1.12 guntas, leaving open to them with regard to Ac.0.19 guntas to file a suit for declaration of title. In view of the observation made in the second appeal, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed O.S.No. 329 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. They also carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of special leave. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed in S.A.No. 253 of 2001 and remanded the matter back to this Court for disposal afresh. The said second appeal is pending disposal. While so, the petitioners filed an application being I.A.No. 2734 of 2008 in O.S.No. 329 of 2005 seeking permission of the Court to file the documents detailed thereunder. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that they applied for certified copies of the said documents and produced the same before the Court. The learned Additional Chief Judge proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the petitioners-plaintiffs applied for certified copies only in March, 2008 and they did not make their efforts for certified copies earlier. The order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge reads as under: “Perused proceedings. The issues are settled in the suit on 31.08.2006. The reason for not filing document is that, they are filed in some other Court. The petitioner could have obtained certified copies or got the original sent for much earlier to commencement of trial. A perusal of documents show that even Copy Application is filed in March, 2008 only in O.S.No.572 of 1989. It is clear that petitioner is sleeping over the matter for all these years and contributed for delay in trial. Hence, petition is devoid of merits. It is dismissed. No costs.” It appears that the respondents did not file counter to the petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs to receive the documents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly stated that the second appeal being O.S.No.523 of 2001 is still pending disposal before this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be stated that the petitioners-plaintiffs are not vigilant in prosecuting O.S.No.329 of 2005 and obtaining certified copies. The impugned order under revision is set aside and consequently I.A.No.2734 of 2008 in O.S.No.329 of 2005 shall stand allowed. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Date:27.10.2009 usd