THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.M.P.No.2144 of 2011 & C.R.P.No.3083 of 2010 Date of Order: 01-07-2011 Between: M.A.Rasheed Khan ..Petitioner And 11.M.A.washeed Khan and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.M.P.No.2144 of 2011 & C.R.P.No.3083 of 2010 ORAL Order: The default order dated 01-04-2011 is recalled. C.M.P.No.2144 of 2011 is ordered. Heard the revision petition on merits. Petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the present revision aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.462 of 2009 filed by him seeking leave to file Deed of Dissolution dated 25-08-1983 and to receive the same as document in the suit—O.S.No.98 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada filed for partition between the plaintiff and the defendants 3 and 4. According to the plaint averments, plaint schedule properties are purchased from the income of the partnership firm by the father of the parties, as such the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the pliant schedule property. In the said suit written statement was filed on 31- 03-2003, issues were settled on 12-08-2003. After closure of evidence on the plaintiff’s side, petitioner (D1) was examined as D.W.1 on 11-08-2008 and sufficiently cross- examined on 20-08-2009 and 21-08-1989 and 14-10-2009 for D2. When it is reported no evidence on behalf of D3 and D4 the petitioner —D1 filed the present I.A. for receiving the document. The same was contested by the plaintiff stating that the 1st defendant either in the affidavit in lieu of chief examination or in the written statement sated about the alleged document of dissolution deed; therefore, now he cannot introduce the said document. The lower court dismissed the same on the ground that the case pertains to the year 2003, issues were framed on 12-08-2003, but the petitioner has not put forth any efforts to file the document on which he wants to rely and kept silent for all these six years. Admittedly, in the affidavit filed by the petitioner it is only stated that plaint schedule properties were purchased from out of the funds of the plaintiff and D2 and subsequently 2nd defendant executed a release deed in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and other properties wherein he was the co-owner. During the life time of their father a dissolution deed was executed. The said document was not filed, as it misplaced and could not be traced earlier than today. As such delay may be condoned. Since no satisfactory explanation was offered by the petitioner though referred at the time of filing written statement, that their father retired from the partnership on 31-03-1983 and subsequently dissolution deed dated 15-08-1983 was executed, but he has not filed the document either along with the written statement or after the issues are settled nor the said document put to P.W.1 when he examined in the court. In view of the same, the present application is only an after thought to protract the litigation. Therefore, the lower court rightly dismissed the I.A. which do not warrant any interference by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 01-07-2011 Murthy