ORDER :

These CRP.Nos.1976 & 1977 of 2021 have been filed challenging the orders passed in I.A.Nos.4 & 3 of 2021 in O.S.No.313 of 2004 respectively, on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City civil Court at Chennai.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was allotted to an extent of 87.5 sq. mt., in Plot No.144, Kannagi Nagar. The 1st Respondent filed O.S.No.313 of 2004 seeking relief of declaration that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff is the allottee in respect of schedule mentioned plot and entitled to all rights of an allottee under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and decree for permanent injunction restraining the second defendant interfering with the Plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned plot as an allottee under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The allotment ordered in favour of the Petitioner was altered and after devision it was allotted to the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner preferred W.P.No.6103 of 1999 and W.P.No.79 of 2004 seeking direction to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance board represented by the Estate Officer to execute a sale deed in favour of the Petitioner and calling for the records in respect of the impugned order dated 23.06.2003 made in Se.Mu.Ka.No.6431/E3/03 of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and quash the same. The said Writ Petitions were allowed by this Court. Against the order passed in the Writ Petitions, the 1st Respondent filed W.A.No.615 of 2015 and 3448 of 2019 and they are pending. Meanwhile, the Petitioner filed Petition under Section 10 of CPC for staying further proceedings in O.S.No.313 of 2004 for the reason that once Writ Petitions are disposed, the issue between the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent would be once for all over. The said Petition was dismissed. Against the said order, revision in CRP.No.2454 of 2013 was filed and the said Petition was dismissed on 31.08.2020 with the direction to the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the case within a period of two months and then it was extended for another six months.

3. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that despite giving sufficient opportunity to give evidence, the 2nd Respondent/1st Defendant in the Suit has not chosen to give evidence and the evidence of the 2nd Respondent was closed. The Petitioner side evidence was closed and the matter is pending for arguments. The issue between the parties would be resolved only if the stand of the 2nd Respondent is made known to the Court. In the absence of examination of the 2nd respondent or any responsible person from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, it is not possible for the Court to arrive at a right conclusion. Therefore, the Petitioner filed I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2021 for reopening the case and to issue sub-poena to the 2nd Respondent. Both the Petitions came to be dismissed. Against the said dismissal order only these CRPs are filed.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated that unless the 2nd Respondent or any other responsible person from the 2nd Respondent's Board is examined, it is difficult for the Court to decide the rival claim of the parties. He further submitted that in the written statement filed by the 2nd Respondent, it was specifically pleaded by extracting Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board Act 1971 that the Suit is not maintainable. Therefore he prays for allowing of the applications and for sending sub-poena to the 2nd Respondent.

5. In response, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Petition filed by the Petitioner for sending sub-poena to the 2nd Respondent is not reasonable and not maintainable. In this regard he relied upon the judgment in the case of Minor Arumugam @ Logesh & Another Vs. State Bank of India & Others, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 773 for the proposition that calling the opposite party as witness cannot be accepted. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment reads as fo