Judgment :- The revision petitioner/respondent/first defendant has filed this civil revision petition aggrieved against the order passed in I.A.No.12214 of 2007 in O.S.No.4671 of 2007 dated 11.01.2008 by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. by the respondents/plaintiffs praying for a direction directing the revision petitioner/first defendant to deposit before Court the title deeds pertaining to the suit property. 2. The trial Court has passed order in I.A.No.12214 of 2007 in allowing the application inter alia observing that the documents settlement deed dated 07.04.1972 relied on by respondent/petitioners is an important one and that the contention of the revision petitioner/respondent that he does not know about the knowledge of the settlement deed and that he does not have custody of the same have not been believed by it and resultantly, directed the revision petitioner to deposit the original documents pertaining to the suit property before the Court and allowed the application. .3. Assailing the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the application I.A.No.12214 of 2007, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the trial Court has passed orders for production of document to the effect that it is an important document for the case which is incorrect on the facts and circumstances of the case and that at no point of time the revision petitioner has come to know of the alleged settlement deed and since the marriage has been dissolved between the respondent and the revision petitioner, there has been no necessity to compel and threaten the revision petitioner to execute the alleged settlement deed and that since the petitioner is not in custody of the documents, the order passed by the trial Court will create unnecessary complication at the time of trial and hence, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. This Court has heard the arguments advanced on both sides and noticed the contentions put forward by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. .5. 4. This Court has heard the arguments advanced on both sides and noticed the contentions put forward by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. .5. Admittedly, the suit O.S.No.4671 of 2007 has been laid by the respondents/plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/ first defendant or through his men, agents, representatives or persons under him or through the defendants 2 to 4, from attempting to create any kind of third party interest, lien or charge over the suit schedule property which is detrimental to the interests of the second plaintiff and for consequential direction directing the defendants not to interfere with the second plaintiffs right of visiting the schedule property for inspection. In the said suit, the revision petitioner/first defendant has filed a detailed written statement mentioning among other things that at no point of time he had forced and compelled and exercised undue influence on the first plaintiff on 07.04.1972 etc. and that the second defendant purchased the property and after dissolution of marriage between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, the revision petitioner/first defendant married the second defendant and living in the suit property for more than 3 ½ decades etc. and the revision petitioner/first defendant is aged and his health is not in good condition and when he has intention to settle the suit property in favour of the other defendants, at that stage, the first defendant also fulfilled his intention by executing a settlement deed dated 28.09.2007 by settling the suit property in favour of other defendants and that the claim of the plaintiffs are not bonafide and they cannot claim any right over the suit property etc. Added further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the respondents have obtained the certified copy of settlement deed dated 07.04.1972 and in as much as the revision petitioner does not know about the knowledge of the alleged settlement deed claimed by the respondents, the relief granted by the trial Court in the interlocutory application needs to be set aside. 6. 6. On going through the order of the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has categorically stated in its order that the settlement deed dated 07.04.1972 is an important document and that it has not accepted the contention of the revision petitioner that he does not know anything about the settlement deed since he is no knowledge of the said property and therefore, these documents should necessarily be in his possession. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that all the original documents relating to suit properties were handed over by the first respondent/first plaintiff to the revision petitioner and therefore, it is incompetent on the part of the revision petitioner to produce all the documents connected with the suit property. 8. It appears that a subsequent suit O.S.No.1384 of 2008 has been filed by respondents/plaintiffs pending on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same is pending since the divorce has taken place between the first respondent/plaintiff and the revision petitioner and in view of the averment made by the first respondent/ plaintiff that the settlement deed is in possession of revision petitioner though the same has been denied by the revision petitioner, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has come to the conclusion based on preponderance of probability of facts that the original documents connected with the suit property should be in possession with the revision petitioner and this Court, sitting in revision at this stage, is not inclined to interfere with the factual finding rendered by the trial Court in this regard exercising its judicial discretion and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in the interest of justice. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.12214 of 2007 in O.S.No.4671 of 2007 dated 11.01.2008 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.12214 of 2007 in O.S.No.4671 of 2007 dated 11.01.2008 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ first defendant informs this Court that if the revision petitioner has not produced the settlement deed dated 07.04.1972 and other original documents connected with the suit, then there is an apprehension on the part of revision petitioner that his client will be affected in regard to the conduct of the suit in O.S.No.4671/2007 and 1384/2008 pending before the trial Court. A litigant cannot indulge in surmises, conjectures and assumptions etc. However, this Court, in the interest of justice and to prevent aberration of justice, directs that the trial Court shall proceed with the aforesaid two suits and dispose of the same uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this revision. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner/ first defendant is a senior citizen and is aged about 77 years and since P.W.1 has been examined in part in O.S.No.4671 of 2007, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said suits viz., O.S.No.4671/2007 and 1384/2008 pending on its file as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and report compliance to this Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.