Judgment :- C.R.P. No. 2490 of 1998 arises in O.S. 91 of 1996 and the other revision C.R.P. 2491 of 1998 arises in O.S. 437 of 1998. Both the suits are pending before District Munsif Court, Tanjavur. 2. These revision petitions arise under peculiar circumstances. 3. Revision petitioner is not a party in both the suits. But he has filed these revisions complaining of the procedure adopted by the lower Court. 4. It is the case of petitioner that the Sangam is registered under Registration of Societies Act and its employee are governed by the rules and regulations prescribed by Khadi and Village Industries Board. It has various showrooms and production centers. 5. One Radhakrishnan is working as Manager in the Readymade production Centre of the Sangam for nearly three years. He was in charge of money transaction, production and accounts. It is the case of petitioner that he misappropriated huge amount and when the same was found out, he refused to part with various books and bills when demanded by the Inspectors. It is said that on two dates i.e. , 20.7.1998 and 21.7.1998 when Inspectors of Sangam wanted to verify records, Radhakrishnan showed them a summon issued in O.S. 91 of 1996 wherein he was directed to produce all accounts before Court. Thereafter, petitioner also showed a notice that there is direction in I.A. 524 of 1998 in O.S. 437 of 1998 wherein petitioner was directed to produce all accounts. Petitioner on verification found that in both the suits Sangam is not interested and in fact the summons shown to them has no connection with the suit. According to petitioner, such summons came to be issued only at the instance of Radhakrishnan, Manager of Readymade showroom in collusion with counsel appearing for plaintiff in both the suits. By producing documents in the Court, Radhakrishnan can prevent enquiry against him, and he misused the process of Court asking trial Court to issue summon to him. 6. When these allegations were made, I directed office to send for all the records in both suits for verification. Since allegations were also made against counsel for plaintiffs in both suits, I also directed counsel to be present before this Court for taking necessary action. All further proceedings in the suits were also stayed. 7. After issuing notice to counsel, he appeared before this Court through Senior counsel Mr. G. Subramaniam. 8. Since allegations were also made against counsel for plaintiffs in both suits, I also directed counsel to be present before this Court for taking necessary action. All further proceedings in the suits were also stayed. 7. After issuing notice to counsel, he appeared before this Court through Senior counsel Mr. G. Subramaniam. 8. Even though plaintiffs in the respective suits are also parties to the revision petitions and notices have been ordered to them, I do not think the same have been served. But I do not want to keep the revision petitions pending in view of subsequent events. 9. I have already narrated the facts above. It is clear therefrom that it is the counsel who is appearing for plaintiffs in both suits is really responsible for this abuse. 10. In O.S. 91 of 1996, suit is for transfer of patta where defendants are Government and others. What was the necessity for producing accounts of Co-operative Society could not be explained by the counsel. Likewise, in O.S. 437 of 1996 also Sangam is not defendant. But two of the Directors have been impleaded in their personal Capacity. There also cannot be any question of production of accounts. But summons seem to have been issued to Radhakrishnan even though same is addressed to the Secretary of the Sangam. Radhakrishnan has been addressed to produce the accounts and books of which he is in possession, so that he can actually prevent inspectors from taking possession of the same. 11. When I questioned the counsel who was present in the Court, learned Senior counsel assured that he will see that such acts will not be repeated and he prayed for being excused for the time being. He also assured that he will take necessary action to see that O.S. 437 of 1998 will be withdrawn and summons issued in O.S. 91 of 1996 also will not be pressed. He also submitted that there is private complaint registered before Judicial Magistrate, Tanjore in Crime No. 4 of 1998 concerning the same matter and that he will see that the complaint is also withdrawn. In view of the assurance by the senior counsel I adjourned the case directing the counsel to file necessary petitions or memo for further proceeding with the revision petitions. 12. In view of the assurance by the senior counsel I adjourned the case directing the counsel to file necessary petitions or memo for further proceeding with the revision petitions. 12. Consequently, on 8.1.1999 a memo has been filed by counsel who appeared for plaintiffs in O.S. 437 of 1998 and O.S. 91 of 1996. In that memo, he said that necessary action has been taken to withdraw O.S. 437 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tanjore and that he also assured that he will not be pressing for issuance of summons to Sangam and necessary petition has been filed before District Munsif Court, Tanjore where O.S. 91 of 1996 is pending. It is also said that he had given sworn statement before Judicial Magistrate, Tanjore to withdraw the private complaint filed by him. 13. In view of the above memo, I dispose of the C.R.P. with following directions: 14. Plaintiff in O.S. 437 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif, Tanjore i.e. , first Respondent in C.R.P. 2491 of 1998 shall withdraw the suit filed by him. He is debarred from prosecuting the suit. Since he had already filed memo seeking withdrawal of suit, I declare that O.S. 437 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tanjore shall be dismissed as withdrawn. C.R.P. 2491 of 1998 is disposed of as above. 15. In C.R.P. 2490 of 1998, plaintiff therein shall not take out summons to petitioner in this case for production of document or any other purpose and the undertaking in the memo is recorded. Since memo has been filed in lower Court, I direct lower Court to pass appropriate orders in O.S. 91 of 1996. 16. It is further directed that private complaint in Crime No. 4 of 1998 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tanjore shall not be proceeded with and respondent in C.R.P. 2491 is prohibited from prosecuting the same. 17. Counsel Rajkumar, who is appearing for plaintiffs in O.S. 91 of 1996 and O.S. 437 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tanjore is directed not to repeat this conduct hereafter and if he continues any such act, unbecoming of a counsel, serious action will be taken against him. He is discharged for the time being with this warning. 18. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. He is discharged for the time being with this warning. 18. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, all connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.