HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3821 of 2011 Date:23.09.2011 Between: Gangala Achaiah and two others. ..... Petitioners AND Gajwel Venkatesham and seven others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt G.Neeraja Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 03.08.2011, in I.A.No.183 of 2011 in O.S.No.464 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the said suit filed for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed three applications namely I.A.No.182 of 2011 for reopening of the case, I.A.No.184 of 2011 for recalling P.W-1 and I.A.No.183 of 2011 for receiving the documents. All these applications having been dismissed, the petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition against order in I.A.No.183 of 2011. At the hearing, Smt G.Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that due to lack of proper handling of the case by the learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners and who died after filing I.A.No.183 of 2011, proper reasons could not be assigned by the petitioners for filing the applications at a belated stage. A perusal of the order under revision shows that the trial was commenced with examination of P.W-1 on 31.08.2009 and marking of Exs.A-1 to A-18 on the plaintiffs’ side and the cross-examination of P.W-1 was completed on 26.10.2009. P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined in chief and were also cross-examined on subsequent dates and the plaintiffs’ side evidence was closed on 06.07.2010. Subsequently, the defendants’ side evidence was also closed. The arguments were thereafter commenced and they were completed on the plaintiffs’ side. Before commencement of the defendants’ side arguments, the plaintiffs filed the above-mentioned three applications. The Court below has taken the view and in my opinion rightly that there was absolutely no diligence on the part of the petitioners’ in pursuing their cause in the case and that, no reasons absolutely whatsoever have been assigned for coming out with the above mentioned applications at the stage of arguments by the defendants. The party who slept over their rights and shows utter lack of diligence is not entitled to the indulgence of the Court. As the applications filed were too belated, the Court below was justified in rejecting the same. Therefore, I do not find any jurisdictional error on the part of the Court below in dismissing the application. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.5483 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd September2011 DR