THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.1963 of 2009 Date:08.11.2010 Between: Banala Venkateshwara Rao. ……….. Petitioner/Defendant. And M/s.Kakatiya Timber and Furniture Works, Mulug Road, Warangal rep by its proprietor Gaddam Kattaiah, Warangal. ……. Respondent/Plaintiff. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.1963 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed in I.A.No.182 of 2009 in O.S.No.23 of 2004 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Warangal. The petitioner herein is defendant in the man suit. The respondent is plaintiff, who filed the suit for recovery of money based on a contract to supply teakwood and his evidence was closed on 3.3.2008. Then the petitioner herein is filed chief affidavit on 19.3.2008. Finally he was cross-examined on 21.8.2008. D.W.2 was partly examined on 28.9.2008. Then an application to recall P.W.1 was filed and he was examined only on 29.12.2008. Another application was filed to summon another witness, whose presence could not be secured till 02.02.2009. Then defendant side evidence was closed. Again he was not ready for arguments on 24.1.2009 & 3.3.2009 and the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent were heard and the matter was posted for further arguments on 6.2.2009. Then he has filed an application under Order 16, Rule 6 & 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C to issue summons to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District and the Superintendent Engineer, R & B, Warangal and also to call for the certified copy of the authenticated building, S.S.Rs of 2001- 02 and 2007-2008. The lower Court observed that the petitioner had already reported that his side evidence is closed and then the matter was called for arguments and that one of the Retired Divisional Forest Officer was already examined to speak about the S.S.R rates. It is also observed that the matter in issue is the cost of the teakwood and not the cost of the material. The lower Court also observed that the S.S.R rates are issued by the concerned department through a circular and by the Government order, and a copy of which can easily be obtained and filed, and further the Court would be competent to take judicial notice of the same. Observing that instead of making any such attempts, the petitioner just to drag on the matter filed the application, the lower court, dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought for are material documents. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? Admittedly, the S.S.R rates are issued by the concerned department through a circular or by an order of the Government, the petitioner has not placed any material to show that he had made any attempts to obtain the certified copies of those documents or for the true copies of those documents and that he could not secure the same. When the petitioner had not made any attempts to secure the certified copies of those documents or the attested copies of those documents, which are admittedly public documents and moreover when the application has been filed at a belated stage, after the evidence of both side parties is over, when the matter was is posted for arguments, it is clear that the finding of the lower Court that the petition has been filed only to drag the matter appears to be correct. In view of the same, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court and there are no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:8.11.2010 mrb