THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2838 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.04.2010 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.160 of 2010 in I.A.No.843 of 2006 in O.S.No.25 of 1998, whereby the application filed for sending the document dated 22.01.1991 to the competent authority for the purpose of impounding, was dismissed. The brief facts are that the respondents instituted the said suit in the year 1998 against the petitioners herein for partition of the plaint schedule property and to put them in their respective shares. The relationship between the first petitioner and the first respondent is that of father-in-law and daughter-in-law. The said suit for partition was decreed as early as on 03.06.2002 and a preliminary decree was passed. The same was questioned by filing an appeal before this Court in A.S.No.2154 of 2002 and this Court while permitting the Court below to proceed with all further proceedings, directed not to pass any final decree, pending disposal of the said appeal. Pursuant thereto, the respondents filed I.A.No.843 of 2006 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for partition of the plaint schedule property and the Court below is seized of the matter. In the said suit, the present application as stated supra has been filed stating that certain land was gifted by the first petitioner herein in favour of his daughter vide gift deed dated 22.01.1991 and the said gift deed requires registration and as such the same may be sent to the competent authority for the purpose of registration. The Court below by the impugned order dated 01.04.2010 dismissed the said application. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the Court below has justified in dismissing the present interlocutory application. Further, from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is clear that neither during the course of trial in the suit nor when the said application for appointment of an advocate commissioner was filed, the first petitioner has disclosed about the said gift deed made in favour of his daughter and it is only for the first time i.e., after a lapse of more than 12 years of filing the suit, he has taken such a plea in this application. If really it is a fact that the said land was gifted by the first petitioner in favour of his daughter, nothing prevented him in stating so either in the written statement filed by him in the said suit or in the counter-affidavit filed in I.A.No.843 of 2006. For this reason also, this Court is of the view that this revision petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date: 10.12.2010 va