THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4772 of 2010 Dated: 11-11-2010 Order: This defendant’s revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order in docket dated 30-9-2010 passed by the Court of the I-Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada rejecting I.A.No. 404 of 2010 in O.S.No. 1600 of 2005. The respondent filed the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and for a mandatory injunction to remove certain structures on the suit schedule property allegedly put up by the revision petitioner. In the plaint itself the respondent herein had pleaded that the plaint schedule property was assigned to her by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned on 17-6-1993 and a patta has been issued for plot No. 60, the plaint schedule property. A copy of the patta has also been filed into the Court as part of the documents annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff’s side evidence was concluded and the defendants evidence has commenced and at that stage and a decade after the institution of the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No. 404 of 2010 seeking issue of summons under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC to the Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban to cause production of the assignment particulars i.e., the list of allottees of the plots relating to the L.P.No.52/97 under the revised plan of 40/1986 situated in Sy.No. 138/2 Recharlapeta ward No.6 Block No.3, Kakinada and to give evidence. The above application was rejected by the court below by the order impugned on the ground that the petition is filed for causing production of the assignment particulars and for examining the M.R.O. and that under Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice, the court should not summon the documents from the public office unless the party takes steps for obtaining copy of the same from the concerned department. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 404 of 2010 the revision petitioner had also claimed to have applied to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada under the Right to Information Act for the assignment particulars in respect of which the I.A. was filed. The court below recorded while rejecting the application that the revision petitioner failed to plead as to when the application to the M.R.O. was made and as to what happened to that application. Sri Sridhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that reliance on Rule 129 of the Civil Rules of Practice by the court below is misconceived, since I.A.No. 404 of 2010 was filed not only for production of documents but also for examining the M.R.O. and therefore Rule 129 (3) of the Civil Rules of Practice is not applicable to this application. This may be so. The fact remains that despite of clear and ambiguous pleadings in the plaint filed in the year 2005 specifically averring that the plaintiff’s title to the property is based on the patta issued to her on 17-6-2993 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kakinada and despite the copy of the patta filed as a suit document, the revision petitioner/defendant displayed no litigative diligence consistent with the facts of the case in seeking production of the documents which in the revision petitioner’s view would impeach the claim of the plaintiff. Litigation cannot be a laid back process. The application of the petitioner I.A.No. 404 of 2010 ought to be rejected on the ground of laches having been filed five years after the institution of the suit, despite the clear averments in the plaint and after the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence as well. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court discerns no substantive error or miscarriage of justice in the order of the court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 11th November, 2010 GRR