ORDER : 1. Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision petition against the order dated 08.11.2021 in I.A. No. 90 of 2020 in O.S. No. 97 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 97/2014 for declaration and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. In the plaint, it was contended that the father of the 1st plaintiff and grand-father of the 2nd plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1971 from Sk. Habibunnisa. Plaintiffs, being the employees, are residing in Secunderabad. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, the respondents trespassed into the schedule property and constructed compound wall. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration and delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. 3. The defendants filed written statement and contended that the defendants purchased plaint schedule property from the vendor of the 1st plaintiff’s father and grand-father of the 2nd plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 17.01.1991 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 4. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 90 of 2020 under order VII Rule 14(3) Civil Procedure Code praying the court to grant leave to receive the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.12.1964. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter-alia, that during the course of trial, Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. At the time of filing of the suit, the link document could not be obtained. Later, they could get the link document and filed the application to receive the document. 6. The 2nd Respondent filed counter and opposed the application. 7. Trial court by order dated 08.11.2021 dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 8. Heard Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Moola learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the documents sought to be filed is certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.12.1994, whereby the vendor of father of the 1st plaintiff purchased the property. 8. Heard Sri Vijaya Bhaskar Moola learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the documents sought to be filed is certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.12.1994, whereby the vendor of father of the 1st plaintiff purchased the property. He also would submit that the suit is filed for declaration of Plaintiffs right and title in the suit schedule property and the burden of proof lies upon them to prove the case and the trial court without considering these aspects, dismissed the application. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is no foundation in the pleadings regarding the document and the trial court rightly dismissed the application. 11. The point for consideration is: Whether the court below exercised its jurisdiction properly? 12. Suit O.S. No. 97 of 2014 was filed for declaration and possession and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. It was pleaded in the plaint that the father of the plaintiffs purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1971 from one Shaik Habibunnisa W/o Silar Saheb. The Plaintiffs now seeking leave to receive the link document i.e. vendor document dated 16.12.1964. Though, the trial court pointed out regarding the delay in not filing the document, the document now sought to be filed is certified copy of the registered sale deed of vendor of the father of the 1st plaintiff. In fact, in the plaint it was pleaded that the plaintiffs purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 17.01.1971 from Shaik Habibunnisa. Thus, foundation in the pleading was laid regarding this document. Vendor Smt Shaik Habibunnisa purchased the property under the sale deed dated 16.12.1964. 13. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure are hand- maid of justice and not its mistress. In a suit for declaration, since the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs, the trial court should have exercised its jurisdiction in favour of plaintiff. Since the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously this court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Art 227 of the Constitution of India. In a suit for declaration, since the burden heavily lies on the plaintiffs, the trial court should have exercised its jurisdiction in favour of plaintiff. Since the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously this court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Art 227 of the Constitution of India. The order under revision is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A. No. 90 of 2010 in O.S. 97 of 2014 is stands allowed. The trial court shall receive the document subject to its proof and relevancy. Since the suit is of the year 2014, the petitioners/plaintiffs shall co-operate with the trial of the suit. The trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view, the circular issued by this court in ROC No. 560/OP/CELL/2022, dated 23.11.2022. No order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.