( 1 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioners filed an application in I. A. No. 1408 of 2005 in o. S. No. 461 of 2004 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 45 of the A. P. Civil rules of Practice to permit them to file additional affidavit in I. A. No. 1056 of 2004. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it was stated that in the light of several irrelevant documents which had been filed an opportunity may be given to confront and submit a reply by way of additional affidavit in i. A. No. 1056 of 2004. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that no proposed additional affidavit had been enclosed and except the reasons specified supra no other reasons had been mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application praying for the leave. ( 3 ) RULE 45 of the A. P. Civil Rules of Practice deals with Notice of Filing. It reads as hereunder: " The party filing an affidavit intended to be read in support of an application shall give not less then two days notice thereof to the other parties, who shall be entitled to inspect and obtain copies of the same, and to file counter-affidavits and shall given notice thereof to the applicant, who may inspect and obtain copies of the same; and file affidavits in reply but except with the leave of the court no further affidavit shall be filed or read. If any party fails to give notice of filing an affidavit the court may grant an adjournment of the hearing and order the party in default to pay the costs thereof. " ( 4 ) EMPHASIS was laid on the words and file affidavits in reply but except with the leave of the Court no further affidavits shall be filed or read . It is needless to say that while exercising the power of granting leave or refusing leave, the Court is expected to apply the mind to the facts of a particular given case and arrive at a conclusion whether leave to be granted or not. It is needless to say that while exercising the power of granting leave or refusing leave, the Court is expected to apply the mind to the facts of a particular given case and arrive at a conclusion whether leave to be granted or not. The learned Judge, in fact observed as hereunder: " In the instant case, this Court finds no reasons to exercise its discretion to allow petitioner to file additional affidavit, as prayed. Since the suit and interlocutory application for temporary injunction is pending, this Court does not propose to observe anything further on the contentions of the parties, inasmuch as, anything observed may affect the enquiry of injunction petition. " ( 5 ) ON a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned Judge had exercised the discretion properly and inasmuch as no convincing reasons had been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application and especially in view of the fact that the proposed reply affidavit also had not been enclosed along with the application, the dismissal of the application cannot be found fault. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the C. R. P. shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate application along with the proposed reply affidavit, if any, if they are so advised.