THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :3230 of 2010 Date: 6.8.2010 Between: Subbasani Vivekanda Reddy ..... PETITIONERS AND Puli Cherla Bala Timma Reddy and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :3230 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 21.6.2010 in I.A. No. 315 of 2010 in I.A. No.221 of 2010 in O.S No. 114 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. The petitioner is the sole defendant in the above suit filed by the respondents. The suit was instituted for the purpose of declaration of title and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the respondents filed I.A. No.221 of 2010 for temporary injunction. The petitioner filed I.A. No.282 of 2010 in the said application for injunction for permitting him to mark certain documents. The said application was allowed and those documents were marked as Exs. B8 to B12. However, the petitioner has come out with another application after the arguments in I.A. No.221 of 2010 were closed with a request to summon the executants of Exs.B8 to B12. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the said application. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioner’s application, I.A. No. 315 of 2010 was justifiably dismissed by the Court below. In the first place, the petitioner should have sought for the said relief in I.A. No. 282 of 2010 itself. After marking the documents as Exs. B8 to B12, in pursuance of the order passed in I.A. No.282 of 2010 and after arguing I.A. No.221 of 2010, the petitioner has come up with a fresh application, which shows dilatory tactics on his part. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the Court below, that since I.A.No. 221 of 2010 filed by the respondents was only for temporary injunction, the main point to be decided was with respect to the possession of the parties at the time of filing of the suit and in that view of the matter, the recitals in Exs.B8 to B12 may not have been of much significance, for adjudicating the said aspect. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 6th August, 2010 pnb