Judgment :- This order shall govern the two CRPs. viz. CRP.Nos.1291 and 1292 of 2007. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. These two Civil Revision Petitions have arisen from the order of dismissal of two Interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.143 made in O.S.No.35 of 2004 by the plaintiff seeking permission of the Court to file a suit in a representative capacity and I.A.No.144 of 2004 seeking permission to sue the defendant in a representative capacity in the said suit. 4. After hearing the counsel on either side, it would be quite clear that the plaintiff who sought for the relief of rendition of accounts from the defendants file, filed the first application to implead him as representative of the Public of Nadu Street, Kallathur, Udayarpalayam Trust and the said application was dismissed. Equally the defendant/respondent was shown as representative of the Public of Subramania Kovil Street Kallathur, Udayarpalayam Taluk and that application was also dismissed. The ground for dismissal of these two applications, according to the lower court was that the names of the petitioner and the respondent are not available in the sale deed dated 6. 1912. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner at the time of enquiry of these revisions has brought to the notice of this Court that the suit filed by the plaintiff to defend the suit in the representative capacity like this, has already been filed in O.S.No.11 of 2004, taken on file and the same is also pending. Having done so, the same Court has taken a different view that there is no evidence available to sue in the representative capacity and hence the lower Court has taken a erroneous view and hence the orders passed in the said applications have got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above contentions. 7. It is not the fact in controversy that already the suit has been taken on file in O.S.No.11 of 2004 by the same plaintiff in the representative capacity and also the same defendant in the suit in the same representative capacity. But at the same time, that cannot be a ground for allowing these revisions, in the absence of sufficient evidence produced in so far as this suit is concerned. But the lower court has dismissed the applications on the ground that sufficient evidence was not available. But at the same time, that cannot be a ground for allowing these revisions, in the absence of sufficient evidence produced in so far as this suit is concerned. But the lower court has dismissed the applications on the ground that sufficient evidence was not available. Under such circumstances, once it is brought to the notice of the Court that already the suit has taken on file and the plaintiff has filed the said suit as representative capacity in O.S.No.11 of 2004, in this case, an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to adduce evidence in this regard. For that purpose, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the lower Court and the lower court shall give an opportunity to both the parties to put forth their respective cases and to adduce evidence both oral and documentary and thereafter the lower is also directed to take a decision in the matter as one required in law. 8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision petitions are disposed of. No costs.