Judgment :- Aggrieved over the order and decreetal order dated 31.3.2005 made in I.A.No.6136 of 2005 in O.S.No.5376 of 1994, I.A.No.860 of 2005 in O.S.No.2161 of 1994 and I.A.No.2713 of 2005 in O.S.No.3349 of 2001 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, these civil revision petitions are filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondents are the plaintiffs who filed the suit against the petitioners/defendants for claiming vacant possession and damage for use and occupation. The petitioners/defendants have filed their written statements. The plaintiffs have stated that P.W.1 was examined and his cross-examination is pending. At this stage the defendants have filed applications in I.A.No.6136 of 2005 in O.S.No.5376 of 1994, I.A.No.860 of 2005 in O.S.No.2161 of 1994 and I.A.No.2713 of 2005 in O.S.No.3349 of 2001 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Madras to reject the plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. The said applications have been filed on the ground that the Executive Officer of the plaintiffs-temple is not competent person to file the suit. 3. After contest the said applications were dismissed. 4. Aggrieved over the said orders, these civil revision petitions are filed. 5. Mr. T.V. Krishnamachari the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that the Executive Officer himself cannot file the suit unless the power is assigned to him by the commissioner. To support his case, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has pressed into service a judgment of a Division Bench of this Honourable reported in 2003-1-L.W.386 (Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode by its present Executive Officer, Sri Sabapathy vs. T.M. Muthuswamy Padayachi etc and others.) wherein this court has held as follows: "Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Sections 6(2), 45(2)--Powers and duties of the Executive Officer (E.0.) of a religious institution shall be as assigned to him by the Commissioner under S.45, appertaining to the administration of properties — Duties of Executive Officer of a Temple, what are, under S.45—Suit for recovery of property was instituted by Executive Officer on behalf of the temple — Held, E.O. was not the competent person to institute the suit as he had not been assigned with the power of filing a suit" 6. Per contra Mr. Sriram, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Per contra Mr. Sriram, the learned counsel appearing for Mr. S. Kailasam Associates for respondents temple would contend that the power assigned to the Executive Officer in the year 1961 has already been produced in court and he has also pressed into service a judgment of a division Bench of this Honourable reported in 2004-1-L.W.676 (Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil, Alagar Koil etc. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu etc. & others) wherein this court has held as follows:: "It is further alleged that the respondents have been requested to produce the original documents. C.M.P.6111 of 2003 has been taken out also under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. For reception of the communication dated 14.10.1986 from the Joint Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. to the Executive Officer of Alagar Koil as additional evidence. It is stated that he Executive Officer of Alagar Koil had been assigned with the power to file the suit but the power was omitted to be filed into court at the time of trial that in view of the judgment of a Bench of this court in Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode vs. T.M. Muthuswamy Padayachi (2003 1 L.W.386) holding that unless the Executive Officer of a temple is specifically empowered to file the suit, he cannot maintain the suit, the document is sought to be produced as additional evidence. 46. The documents now sought to be produced are true copies of plaint documents 35,36,40,41,42,47,52,53,55 and 63. They relate to the period 18.7.1873 to 25.6.1880. The genuineness of the documents sought to be produced is disputed. They have come from proper custody. They are not new documents. The plaintiff had called upon the defendants to produce the originals. It has not been done. No doubt mere non-filing of counter cannot be a ground for receiving additional evidence. However, in our view the materials already on record are not enough to pronounce judgment without taking into consideration the documents sought to be produced now. The trial court has also criticised the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff temple has not produced any document to show that the schedule hills belonged to it. In the circumstance, a clear case is made out for receipt of these documents as additional evidence. We therefore, allow both civil miscellaneous petitions C.M.P.No.6110 and 6111 of 2003 and direct the documents set out therein to be marked as Exhibits A.46 to A56." 7. In the circumstance, a clear case is made out for receipt of these documents as additional evidence. We therefore, allow both civil miscellaneous petitions C.M.P.No.6110 and 6111 of 2003 and direct the documents set out therein to be marked as Exhibits A.46 to A56." 7. In as much as the power assigned to the Executive officer has already been produced in court subsequently it can not be stated that the Executive Officer has no power to file a suit. If power has not been produced then the petitioners can make out their case that the Executive Officer has no power to file the suit. 8. In this case power assigned to the Executive officer by the commissioner has been produced before the court subsequent to the passing of orders in the interlocutory applications and therefore in the said orders there is no discussion about the power assained to the Executive Officer. However it is pertinent to note that the written statements would show a specific denial about the power of executive officer to file suit. Even though the power assigned to the Executive Officer by the commissioner has not been produced at the time of filing of the suit it has been produced later on before the court. 9. Under such circumstance, I do not find any merit in these civil revision petitions. The civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently the connected. C.M.P.Nos.10878,12312 and 19766 of 2005 are also dismissed.