THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1853 of 2010 Date: 09-7-2010 Between 1. B.B.Visweswara Rao and another … Petitioners/Defendants 2 and 1 and 1. B.Sri Lakshmi … Respondent/Plaintiff 2. K.Ravi Kiran, Rep. by GPA Holder K.Sriramachandra Rao … Respondent/Defendant No.3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1853 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 01-02-2010, passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.603 of 2009 in O.S.No.29 of 2004 filed under Order VIII, Rule 1(3) and Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to receive the documents by condoning the delay. 3. The petitioners herein are defendants 2 and 1, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 is defendant No.3 in the suit before the trial Court. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said documents were already sought to be filed way back in 2006 in I.A.Nos.720 and 721 of 2006 and in those applications, no orders have been passed and the suit is pending trial. 5. Now the petitioners wanted to introduce certified copies of the documents, which were sought to be marked in I.A.Nos.720 and 721 of 2006, through application I.A.No.603 of 2009. The said application was dismissed. Hence the revision. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though certified copies of the documents which were sought to be marked through the application I.A.No.603 of 2009 is dismissed, still, I.A.Nos.720 and 721 of 2006 are still pending. 7. But what is to be noticed is that no steps have been taken by the petitioners to proceed with I.A.Nos.720 and 721 of 2006. 8. In fact, the material that is sought to be introduced is the same as in the applications I.A.Nos.720 and 721 of 2006 and the present I.A.No.603 of 2009. Even otherwise, these documents that are sought to be marked if not allowed to be marked, it is always open for the petitioners to ventilate the said grievance by way of filing an appeal as contemplated under Section 105 C.P.C. 9. For the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 09th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1853 of 2010 09th July, 2010. (Ak)