IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL C.R.P.PD. Nos. 3846, 3847 and 3848 of 2008 and M.P.No. 1 of 2008 Shri Devi Karumariamman Temple, represented by its Founder, Mrs. Lakshmi Munirathanam .. Petitioner in all C.R.Ps./Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus 1. V. Satchidanandam 2. M. Munirathinam .. Respondents in all C.R.Ps/ Respondents/Defendants The above three Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order 03.11.2008 made in I.A.Nos.17699,17700 and 17701 of 2008 in O.S.No.4346 of 2006 on the file of XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioner in all C.R.Ps. : M/s.C.Umashankar For Respondent-1 in all C.R.Ps. : A.Gowthaman For Respondent-2 in all C.R.Ps. : Mr.K.Shanmugasundaram ORDER The Civil Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/plaintiff has filed these three Revision petitions as against the orders dated 03.11.2008 in I.A.Nos.17699, 17700 and 17701 of 2008 in O.S.No.4346 of 2006 passed by the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in dismissing the applications filed by the revision petitioner praying permission of the Court to file Engineer's report, to reopen the case and to recall PW.1 respectively. 2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.17699, 17700 and 17701 of 2008 has inter-alia opined that ' there is no necessity either compelling or sufficient to reopen the evidence on the side of revision petitioner/plaintiff to recall PW.1 and also to mark Engineer's report and resultantly dismissed the said applications. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the orders passed by the trial Court in dismissing the three applications filed by the revision petitioner is devoid of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ particulars and valid reasons and that the trial Court has not appreciated the pleadings and the evidence in the case and that the trial Court even without looking into the Engineer's report, has come to the conclusion and therefore the said conclusion has no evidentiary value and moreover the trial Court has shutdown the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in dismissing the three Interlocutory applications mentioned supra and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petitions in the interest of justice. 4. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the evidence of both sides have been completed and that the matter has been posted for arguments and that the Engineer's report cannot be taken on file as it has no evidentiary value and that the first respondent is aged about 80 years and there are no merits in the applications and that the trial Court has given convincing reasons while dismissing the applications and therefore the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff brings it to the notice of this Court a decision in the case of 'K.Kasthuri and others ..vs.. C.Mohan and others" reported in 2007(1) Law Weekly 560, wherein this Court has held that, 'right of a party to file a document at the time of hearing of the suit, if he has not already filed such document along with the plaint, is retained by the amendment of 2002 of Code of Civil Procedure etc., and that no infirmity in the order of the trial Court in allowing the application for receipt of additional documents etc.,.' 6. In the instant case on hand, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit praying for a judgment and decree for the relief of declaration declaring that the decree dated 10.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.7770 of 2000 by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff's temple and for the relief of permanent injunction. 7. It transpires that the revision petitioner/plaintiff earlier has filed I.A.No.11614 of 2008 praying for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule mentioned property and the same has been dismissed and that this Court in CRP.PD.No.3083 of 2007 has given directions on 07.03.2008 to the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This Court is informed that the time granted by this Court has already expired and it appears the trial Court has addressed a letter to the Hon'ble High Court praying for extension of time to dispose of the suit. Inasmuch as the relief sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in the suit is to declare that the decree dated 10.07.2003 passed in O.S.No.7770 of 2008 by XI Assistant Judge, City https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Civil Court as null and void and not binding upon the revision petitioner etc., this Court is of the considered view that the three Interlocutory Applications, one for filing of a document, another for reopening the case and another to recall PW.1, will not in anyway heighten the case of the revision petitioner for the purpose of allowing these applications and in that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. 8. In the result, the above three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the three Interlocutory Applications are affirmed by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order dispassionately uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in these Civil Revision Petitions. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. mra To. The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. + 1 cc to Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, Advocate, SR.67946 + 1 cc to Mr.C.Uma Shankar, Advocate, SR.68134 C.R.P.PD. Nos. 3846, 3847 and 3848 of 2008 and M.P.No. 1 of 2008 RSI(CO) EM/15.12.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/