HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3992 OF 2009 DATE:25-03-2011 BETWEEN Mamidi Jagan Mohan Rao …Petitioner AND Mani Hardwares, rep. by its Managing Partner P.Basava Poornachandra Rao And others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3992 OF 2009 ORDER: Plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, dated 11.8.2009 dismissing I.A.No.131 of 2009 in O.S.No.332 of 2003. Plaintiff-petitioner herein instituted the above suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. Pending the said suit, he filed an application to implead the 5th defendant in the suit, who is the subsequent purchaser of the property under registered sale deed dated 18.11.2006 and on allowing the application, he got amended the plaint by adding para 7-A stating that the said sale is not binding on him. Now, he filed the impugned I.A. under Order VII Rule 14 to condone the delay in filing six documents mentioned in the petition including the sale deed, dated 18.11.2006 for the purpose of marking the same as exhibits. On dismissal of the said I.A., the present revision is filed. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In the entire plaint pleadings, there is no mention with regard to the documents which are now sought to be marked except the sale deed, dated 18.11.2006 and the plaint was accordingly amended after adding the fifth defendant. The lower Court rightly dismissed the I.A. noting the conduct of the petitioner-plaintiff that since from 11.7.2005 to 26.11.2008, the suit was adjourned several times by passing conditional orders to lead evidence by the petitioner. As a last chance, when the suit was posted to 26.11.2008, petitioner took time and filed the impugned I.A. in April, 2009, which itself shows that the petitioner is only interested in protracting the litigation. Further no reasons were assigned whey the documents now sought to be marked were not filed earlier nor there was any reference in the plaint except stating that the petitioner was advised to file the said documents. In view of the same, though this Court does not find any illegality in exercise of the jurisdiction by the lower Court, since there is a plea with regard to the sale deed executed in favour of 5th defendant, which is subsequent to filing of the suit, the sale deed, dated 18.11.2006 alone can be received in evidence, but not other documents. The impugned order passed by the lower Court is accordingly set aside and the I.A. is partly allowed to the extent of receipt of sale deed dated 18.11.2006. The revision is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 25, 2011 Tsr.