(Prayer in C.R.P.No.3678 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.11385 of 2017 in O.S.No.1246 of 2011.

C.R.P.No.3680 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.11387 of 2017 in O.S.No.1246 of 2011.)

1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit was originally filed before this Court in C.S.No.1 of 2010 and later transferred to the file of the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S.No.1246 of 2011. The suit had been filed for the following relief’s:

“(a) Declaring that the suit schedule property pathway is in the title, ownership, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff company.

(b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and anybody claiming under him from trespassing, encroaching and any other activity disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff company.

(c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and anybody claiming under him from putting up any further construction in the suit schedule property.

(d) Mandatory direction directing the defendant to demolish the half constructed unauthorised brick arch at the entrance of suit schedule property in ECR and to dismantle the gate put up in the ECR entrance of the suit schedule property.”

2. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.11387 and 11385 of 2017, filed for re-opening the evidence in the suit and for an issue of Subpoena to various public authorities respectively. It is necessary to briefly allude to the facts preceeding the filing of the revisions and in this narrative the parties are referred to in the same litigative status as in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that, the plaintiff who is a missionary and charitable trust registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, is the owner of the suit property (Which is a pathway). By virtue of a sale deed dated 17.03.1955, the foreign mission had purchased 45 cents of cemetery lands comprised in Paimash No.1382/A along with the suit pathway. It is the case of the plaintiff that under a registered transfer deed dated 14.09.1977, the foreign mission had transferred the property and the suit pathway in favour of the plaintiff who has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same since then.

4. The suit property and other properties were not fenced by the plaintiff until recently and the lands were being used by the people to bring their dead to the cemetery through all approaches. The plaintiff would further submit that when the price of land was escalating on the East Coast Road, Chennai, the land owners around the plaintiff started enclosing their properties within compound walls. During the re-survey settlement, old Paimash No.1382/A was re-numbered as R.S.Nos.97/1A, 97/1B, 97/1C, 97/2, 97/3 and so on. The suit property was allotted R.S.No.97/1C.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had purchased vacant land measuring an extent of 38 cents comprised in R.S.No.97/3. This vacant land was situated behind a row of building facing the East Coast Road. The defendant was running a Hotel in the name and style of “The Chettinad Treat” in this row of buildings. The hotel had a 18 feet frontage on the East Coast Road and the rear portion of the Hotel opened out into the 38 cents that was purchased by the defendant.

6. The plaintiff would contend that after the purchase of the above lands, the defendant was attempting to use the suit pathway which was running on the Northern boundary of the lands purchased by him. The plaintiff, thereafter, on verifying records fou