The common order passed in C.M.P.No.2195 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.2196 of 2005 in Spl.S.C.No.263 of 2004 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Special Judge of Human Rights at Coimbatore is under challenge in Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2005 and Crl.R.C.No.751/2005 respectively.

2. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the complainant seeking indulgence of the court to permit him to examine about 11 witnesses in addition to the witnesses already examined on the side of the complainant. The learned trial Judge had rightly dismissed both the petitions on the ground that the scope of the complaint filed under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 is to decide whether there is any violation of human rights as defined under Section 2(d) of the said Act, has occurred.

3. The learned trial Judge has passed a common order in C.M.P.No.2195 and 2196 of 2005 because in both the petitions the prayer is one and the same i.e., to summon 11 additional witnesses and also to direct them to produce the documents mentioned against their respective names.

4. If the revision petitioner wants to summon any document, if he thinks necessary t