THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1751 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 26.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.303 of 2010 in O.S.No.86 of 2007 by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.86 of 2007 for declaration that the General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.2000 executed by the petitioners/defendants is irrevocable and valid, and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.303 of 2010 under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC seeking to grant time till they obtain certified copy of Ex.B14, the evidence of D.W.3 (Chief and Cross-examination) is closed and filing of revision before this Court. The trial Court, vide order impugned, having observed that the evidence of D.W.3 was closed, Ex.B14 was marked subject to objection; sufficient time was granted to the defendants for their evidence, and as there is a direction from this Court in CMA No.240 of 2008 dated 30.10.2008 to dispose of the matter as early as possible, dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the Court below dismissed the I.A., the petitioners were denied the opportunity of questioning the correctness of the document- Ex.B14, which was marked subject to objection and that though they applied for certified copy of the said document, the same is not furnished to them. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the suit is of the year 2007, ample opportunity has been given to the petitioners, and the learned counsel for the petitioners sought several adjournments, which is evident from a copy of the proceeding sheet in O.S.No.86 of 2007 produced before this Court. He also contended that the petitioners have wrongly mentioned in their affidavit that they filed CRP (SR) No.9249 of 2010 before this Court, but in fact, no such CRP is filed. 6. From a perusal of the copy of docket proceedings in O.S.No.86 of 2009, it is clear that the trial Court granted number of adjournments enabling the petitioners to complete their evidence, but they did not turn up. This shows that the petitioners are dragging on the matter. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in C.M.A.No.240 of 2008 dated 30.10.2008, the trial court dismissed the I.A. observing that sufficient time was granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:23.04.2010. sj