Shri Devi Karumariamman Temple vs V. Satchidanandam and M. Munirathinam

M. Venugopal, J.—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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff brings it to the notice of this Court a decision in the case of K. Kasturi and Others Vs. C.

Mohan, C. Somasundaram and C. Loganathan, 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 CPC etc., and that no infirmity in the order of the trial Court in allowing the application for receipt of additional documents

etc.,.

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.

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 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.

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.