THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3526 of 2009 Date: 21-8-2009 Between Mareddy Srinivasa Reddy … Petitioner/Plaintiff and Ankam Srinivasa Rao and another … Respondents/Defendants THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3526 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard both sides. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 24-7-2009, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.864 of 2009 in O.S.No.748 of 2005, filed under Order VI, Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C., seeking amendment to the plaint. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in the suit before the trial Court. 4. It appears that during trial of the suit, defendant No.1 filed an interlocutory application seeking reception of certain documents. The same was opposed by the plaintiff despite which, the said application was allowed somewhere in 2007 and inasmuch as the order in the said application has not been challenged before this Court and consequently, the said order had become final. Subsequently, trial in the suit had been completed and the suit was being posted for arguments. At that stage, the present interlocutory application came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment to the plaint. 5. As already notice, when an order has been passed by the trial Court in the interlocutory application permitting defendant No.1 to file certain documents, the said order ought to have been challenged by the plaintiff by way of a revision before this Court. About two years had elapsed subsequent to the order passed by the trial Court allowing the said interlocutory application. 6. Now, at this stage, the present application came to be filed by the plaintiff, that too, at the stage of arguments of the suit. The conduct of the plaintiff is hit by the principles of laches. 7. For the foregoing, I do not find any justification in filing the interlocutory application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., at this stage, particularly at the stage of arguments in the suit. I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. The interim stay, in consequence, stands vacated. __________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 21st August, 2009. Ak