ORDER :

The C.R.P.No.195 of 2019 has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.412 of 2017 now pending on the file of the Sub Court at Kangeyam and C.R.P.No.125 of 2021 has been filed by the first defendant in the very same suit O.S.No.412 of 2017.

2. Both the Civil Revision Petitions arises out of persistent efforts made by the plaintiff in the suit by filing applications under Order 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission of the learned Sub Judge, Kangeyam to send for documents from the Sub Registrar Office at Vellakoil with respect to the said 16 number of documents which has been listed in the petition. Originally the plaintiff filed petition in I.A.No.372 of 2018 under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking a direction to the Court to send for documents which according to the petitioners/plaintiffs were available in the Sub Registrar Office at Vellakoil. The details of the documents had also been given. There were 16 documents. All of them are either Power of Attorney or Cancellation of Power of Attorney.

3. It must be pointed out that such an application should have been filed under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The said application came to be dismissed by an order dated 11.04.2018. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff had not taken any efforts to apply for certified copies of the said documents. He had also independently mentioned that the petitioners have not stated how the documents are relevant to determine the issues. The said order was questioned in C.R.P.No.10371 of 2018. By an order dated 02.07.2018, the learned single Judge of this Court had refused to interfere with the said order.

4. The learned Judge had accepted to the reasons given namely that the petitioner had straight away filed application under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice without applying for certified copies. Learned Judge had also observed that the relevancy of the documents had not also been stated.

5. The plaintiff thereafter went back to the Sub Registrar Office, Vellakoil and made an application for certified copies of the said documents. The said application was returned in the Sub Registrar Office, Vellakoil. The plaintiff then went back to the Sub Court to file I.A.No.466 of 2018 once again under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The said application again came to be dismissed by an order dated 11.04.2018. Questioning that order C.R.P.(PD) No.195 of 2019 had been filed.

6. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff again filed I.A.No.675 of 2019 once again under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice which should have been under Rule 75 of the Civil Rules of Practice again calling upon the Court to call for the said documents which were available at Sub Registrar Office at Vellakoil. By an order dated 23.10.2019 that application was allowed. This had given rise to the filing of C.R.P.(PD) No.125 of 2021 filed by the first defendant.

7. The first defendant is naturally confused. On two earlier occasions, similar applications were rejected by the Sub Court, Kangeyam. The third application filed seeking to very same relief came to be allowed.

8. In so far as C.R.P.No.195 of 2019 which questioned the order in I.A.No.466 of 2018, the learned Judge, after observing that the petitioner had filed application to obtain certified copies of the said documents had again reiterated that the relevancy of the said document had not been stated and therefore had thought it fit to dismiss the said application.

9. Since, the plaintiff had obtained relief in I.A.No.675 of 2019, passing any further orders in C.R.P.No.195 of 2019 would be of no avail and therefore the said Revision Petition is dismissed without entering into the discussions on the merits of the order passed.

10. The order in I.A.No.675 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 challenged in C.R.P.No.125 of 2021 has now to be examined. This order has been very seriously questioned by M/s.S.Saravanan, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/first defendant who pointed out that once aga