IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 20-07-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Rev.Appl. No.112 of 2010 Dr.Subha ... Petitioner/Petitioner. Versus Dr.J.P.Rajarajan Immanuvel Balasingh ... Respondent/Respondent. Prayer: Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 Section 114 of code of Civil Procedure code, praying to review the order dated 26.03.2010 in respect of the video conferencing facility for the petitioner herein order passed in C.R.P.(PD)No.3631 of 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.P.N.George Graham for M/s.Devadason and Sagar For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Kumar Ms.K.M.Valsala O R D E R The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.(PD)No.3631 of 2009, is the petitioner in the present Review Application. 2.The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition had filed the said Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of I.D.O.P.No.2227 of 2006, within a specific time, as fixed by this Court. However, an oral plea had been made by the learned counsel for the respondent to utilise the video conferencing facility in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to conduct the proceedings in I.D.O.P.Nos. 2227 and 2518 of 2006. 3. This Court had passed an order, dated 26.03.2010, in C.R.P.(PD)No.3631 of 2009, directing the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to hear and dispose of I.D.O.P.Nos.2227 and 2518 of 2006, on merits and in accordance with law, within period of six months, from the date of the receipt of a copy of the said order. However, the request made on behalf of the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, to avail the video conferencing facility had been rejected, since, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not been in a position to show that such a facility was available in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, at that stage. However, in the present review petition it is brought to the notice of this court, by both the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as respondent, that video conferencing facility has been available in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, from 18.01.2007, onwards. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, the parties in I.D.O.P.Nos.2227 and 2518 of 2006, are permitted to utilise the video conferencing facility in the II Additional Family court, Chennai, on fulfilling the necessary requirements, including the payment of the appropriate charges. However, the time frame fixed by this Court, by the order, dated 26.03.2010, made in C.R.P.(PD) 3631 of 2009, for the disposal of I.D.O.P.Nos. 2227 and 2518 of 2006, shall remain unaltered This Review application is ordered accordingly. arr To The II Addl Family Court, Chennai