THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1826 OF 2010 Dated 23rd July, 2010 Between: G.Narayanappa and another …Petitioners And K.G.V.Krishnaiah and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Subba Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu Senior Counsel appearing For Sri N.Bharat Babu The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 16.04.2010 in I.A.No.220 of 2010 in I.A.No.941 of 2009 in O.S.No. 312 of 2008 on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in the abovementioned suit filed by respondent No.1. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction against the petitioners. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.260 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The Court below has granted ex parte a d interim injunction. Seeking vacation of the said order, the petitioners filed I.A.No.941 of 2009. While the said I.A. is pending, they have come up with another application i.e. I.A.No.220 of 2010 for receiving the following documents. “ 18.03.1977-Registered sale deed executed by Registration A.Yenganna in favour of G.Narayanappa copy 21.02.2008-Registered sale deed executed by G.Narayappa in favour of KGV Chowdery -do- - No.3 adangal extract for Fasli 1398 True extract - No.3 adangal extract for Fasli 1400 -do- - No.3 adangal extract for Fasli 1403 -do-“ The said application was resisted by respondent No.1-plaintiff. The Court below, while accepting the plea of respondent No.1-plaintiff, dismissed the application. In the order under revision, the Court below has observed that all the documents, which are sought to be filed by the petitioners herein, were already filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff in the suit. A perusal of the averments contained in the counter-affidavit, as extracted in paragraph 3 of the order by the lower Court, shows that the plaintiff has filed the original of registered sale deed dated 18.03.1977 and a copy of the registered sale deed dated 21.02.2008 apart from the adangal extracts “for the relevant years”. It is not the pleaded case of the plaintiff that items 3 to 5, which are the adangal extracts for Fasils 1398; 1400 and 1403, sought to be filed by the petitioners herein were filed by the plaintiff. The Court below has misread the contents of the counter-affidavit in arriving at the conclusion that the documents sought to be filed by the petitioners herein were already filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff. Inasmuch as the adangal extracts, which are sought to be filed by the petitioners, are not filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff, I do not find any reason to reject the application to the extent of those three documents. Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has fairly stated that his client has no objection for receiving those documents subject to the right of his client to object to the genuineness or otherwise of those documents. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent of permitting the petitioners to file adangal extracts for Faslis 1398; 1400 and 1403. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, CRPMP No.2459 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd July, 2010 vrn