ORDER Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.205 of 1997, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, for the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioners are defendants therein. The trial of the suit commenced. At one stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.561 of 2004, with a prayer to receive certain documents. Some of the documents are said to have been received. 2. Petitioners filed a set of three Interlocutory Applications, being I.A.Nos.836, 837 and 838 of 2004, with a prayer to; (a) reopen the evidence; (b) recall D.W.1; and (c) summon certain documents, which are said to have been deposited with the Tirupathi Branch of ING Vysya Bank. The trial court dismissed the applications, through a common order dated 1-11-2004. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents, which were sought to be summoned, have a direct bearing and close relevance, to the subject matter of the suit. He contends that on an earlier occasion, the court received the copies of some documents, and the occasion to file the present set of applications arose, on account of the fact that the copies were not permitted to be marked, as exhibits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have been protracting the disposal of the suit, on one pretext or the other. He contends that the documents, which are sought to be summoned, have no relevance whatever, with the subject matter of the suit. 5. The suit filed by the respondent is pending for the past 9 years, without any substantial progress. The petitioners went on filing one petition or the other. A perusal of the order under revision discloses that the learned Judge has taken note of the observations made by the Court on 2-9-2004, in relation to the very documents, which are sought to be summoned, and it was opined that they relate to land in Sy.No.285/B of M.R. Palii village, which is totally different from the suit schedule property. Even that observation did not deter the petitioners, from filing applications almost for the same relief. The petitioners do not contend that they base their title, in respect of any portion of the suit schedule property, on the documents, which are sought to be summoned. 6. Even that observation did not deter the petitioners, from filing applications almost for the same relief. The petitioners do not contend that they base their title, in respect of any portion of the suit schedule property, on the documents, which are sought to be summoned. 6. There is another important factor, which would disable the petitioners from pursuing the C.R.P. As observed earlier, the common order was passed, dismissing the three applications, viz. I.A.Nos.836, 837 and 838 of 2004. This C.R.P. is filed, only insofar as it relates to I.A.No.838 of 2004. As regards the other two applications, the order has become final. It is impermissible for the petitioners, to challenge the same, having permitted the common order to become final, as regards the other applications. Viewed from any angle, this court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. 7. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. The trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit, within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since the disposal has already been delayed. There shall be no order as to costs.