Judgment :- The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are defendants in the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.2945/1999 before the City Civil Court, Chennai seeking for the following prayer; i)for a dedication that the plaintiff is the real owner of lands measuring Acre 1.44 in S.no.43 part, Kolathur Village, Perambur Taluk, Chennai District. ii)Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, from alienating the suit property to any third parties. The respondents/defendants also filed written statement denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.10519/2009 for reopening the evidence on the side petitioners/plaintiffs and permit the petitioners to examine further witnesses on their side. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court is wrong in dismissing the application without any basis and justification. He further submitted that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law, erroneous, biased and against the probabilities of the case. He further contended that the trial Court failed to note that unless the 15 witnesses inclusive of Government witnesses are examined and documents are not produced by the Government, the petitioner will not be able to prove the case. Therefore, the trial Court erroneously closed the petitioners side and dismissed the petition for reopen. The trial Court ought to have seen that the case was not adjourned time to time not at the instance of the petitioners. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have given opportunity to examine the witnesses and order of the trial Court is also perverse. He also relied on the following judgments to support his contention. i.Mrs.Arumaiammal Vs. Manamayee and 3 others reported in 2001 (4) CTC 475. ii.J.Samuel Vs. S.Mathisa Pandian and 2 Others reported in 1998 (1) CTC 296 . iii.Eswari and 3 others Vs. Umadevi and another made in CRP.PD.1297/2009 dated 17.09.2009. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the trial Court has given enough opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the trial Court has given enough opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record. The petitioners/plaintiffs engaged in real estate business. The petitioners/plaintiffs used to buy vast extent of land and spent huge amount for development and sell plots to purchasers at a profit. For this business, the petitioners/plaintiffs required financial assistance. They used to approach the respondents/defendants for the financial assistance. The respondents/defendants take the title deeds in their name and after development and layout sanction etc., they themselves sell plots to the nominee of the developer and take their interest proportionately. In October1987 lands measuring acre 1.44 in S.No.43 part, at Kolathur Village, Perambur was purchased by the petitioners/plaintiffs for development. The petitioners/plaintiffs required 10 lakhs for developing the said land. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs approached the respondents/defendants for financial assistance. The respondents/defendants also agreed to lend that amount on condition that the sale deed or deeds shall be in their name so that they feel secured for the payment. Due to the same, there was a misunderstanding between the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants. Further it was alleged that the respondents/defendants are trying to sell the property for themselves. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the real owner of lands measuring acre 1.44 in S.No.43 part, Kolathur Village, Perambur Takluk, Chennai District and also prayed for interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit property to any third parties. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.Nos.7898/99 and 7899/99 for temporary injunction. After considering the same, the trial Court also granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents/defendants filed C.M.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2007. After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the appellate Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a revision petition before this Court in CRP.Nos.3828 and 3829 of 2007. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents/defendants filed C.M.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2007. After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the appellate Court set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a revision petition before this Court in CRP.Nos.3828 and 3829 of 2007. This Court held in para nos.7 to 9 as follows; 7. The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy appearing for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the suit in O.S.No.2945/1999 pending on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is now ripe for trial and the same is posted in the special list. According to him, it would take 4 or 5 weeks for disposal of the suit itself. Therefore he added that instead of arguing the merits of the civil revisions petitions, appropriate direction could be given to the trial Court for early disposal of the suit and in the meantime the injunction granted by the Court below in I.A.Nos.7898 and 7899 of 1999 could be directed to be continued till the disposal of the suit. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents agreed for this course of action proposed by the learned counsel and for the continuance of the interim order of injunction passed by the trial Court till the disposal of the suit. 9. Considering the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I direct the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.2945 of 1999 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial may be conducted by the trial Court preferably on a day today basis. The interim injunction already granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.Nos.7898 and 7899 of 1999 shall continue till the disposal of the suit. Both the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants are directed to extend their full co-operation to the trial Court to dispose of the suit within the time stipulated herein. After the disposal of the Civil Revision petition by this Court, the trial Court has taken up the matter and also framed issues and the same was posted in the special list on 10.06.2008. Subsequently, it was adjourned at the instance of the parties. After the disposal of the Civil Revision petition by this Court, the trial Court has taken up the matter and also framed issues and the same was posted in the special list on 10.06.2008. Subsequently, it was adjourned at the instance of the parties. The trial Court has given details regarding the adjournment of the matter. The suit was posted on various occasions and it was adjourned periodically. The said details were given in para 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the order. It is also pertinent to note that the suit was taken up for trial during Aug.2008. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed proof affidavit which contains xerox copies of documents and the said documents was received by the trial Court. The petitioners/plaintiffs also examined and the counsel for the respondents/defendants also cross examined on 012. 2008. At that time, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present application stating that they are going to examine several witnesses at least numbering 15. Further, it is very relevant to point out that at that time of conducting enquiry in I.A.Nos.7898 and 7899 of 1999, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed 4 applications in I.A.Nos.12907 to 12910 of 1999 to issue subpoena to the Assistant Commissioner, Urban land Tax, Ambattur and the Assistant Commissioner of ULT, Kundrathur now having office at Alandur, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai directing them to produce the records and they were produced in the suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs were also aware of the said production of the records. In spite of the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed similar application to examine the same witnesses once again in the suit. At that stage, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present application in I.A.No.10519/2009 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for reopening of evidence on the side of the plaintiff and permit the petitioners to examine further witnesses on their side. In the said application no reason was stated why the present application was filed after a period of 10 years i.e. the said suit was filed in the year 1999. When the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, he must have stated reason that why he has not able to file an application earlier. The said order 18 Rule 17 CPC is subject to interpretation of Apex Court in the case of VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. When the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, he must have stated reason that why he has not able to file an application earlier. The said order 18 Rule 17 CPC is subject to interpretation of Apex Court in the case of VADIRAJ NAGGAPPA VERNEKAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS Vs. SHARADCHANDRA PRABHAKAR GOGATE reported in (2009) 4 SCC 410 , wherein para 25 to 31 it has been held as follows; "25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. 26. As indicated by the learned Single Judge, the evidence now being sought to be introduced by recalling the witness in question, was available at the time when the affidavit of evidence of the witness was prepared and affirmed. It is not as if certain new facts have been discovered subsequently which were not within the knowledge of the applicant when the affidavit evidence was prepared. 27. Inthe instant case, Sadanand Shet was shown to have been actively involved in the acquisition of the flat in question and, therefore, had knowledge of all the transactions involving such acquisition. It is obvious that only after the cross-examination of the witness that certain lapses in his evidence came to be noticed which impelled the appellant to file the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. Such a course of action which arises out of the fact situation in this case, does not make out a case for recall of a witness after his examination has been completed. 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention or Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 29. 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention or Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. 29. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. 30. Of course, if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the trial court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter. There is nothing to indicate that such is the situation in the present case. 31. Some of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an application under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within the courts discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case has been made out." From reading above, it is clear that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be used sparingly and the power to recall any witness is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness. In this case, the application was filed belatedly and no reason was stated. Further, the case was adjourned periodically and the same was discussed in detail in para 7 and 8 of the trial Court order. Also, they are aware that earlier this Court order dated 23.07.2008 in CRP.Nos.3828 and 3829 of 2007, a direction already given by this Court to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and also granted stay till the disposal of the suit. Also, they are aware that earlier this Court order dated 23.07.2008 in CRP.Nos.3828 and 3829 of 2007, a direction already given by this Court to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and also granted stay till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court had given enough opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is not a perverse one. Further, the case law cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In those judgments, no proper opportunity was given to the parties and therefore, the Court held that proper opportunity should be given to the parties. In this case, the record shows that enough opportunities were given to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs cited supra are not helpful to the petitioners/plaintiffs. The Apex Court considered the scope of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of MS.CELINA COELHO PEREIRA AND OTHERS V. ULHAS MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR AND OTHERS reported in 2009(13) Scale 487 , wherein it has been held as follows: "32. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and another, this Court held: "The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts." 33. In State through Special Cell, New Delhi V. Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and others this Court explained the power of the High Court under Article 227 thus: "Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. The supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory order. However the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised “as the cloak of an appeal in disguise”. 34. The aforesaid two decisions and few other decisions, namely, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, State of Maharashtra V. Milind & others, Rajneet Singh V. Ravi Prakash, came to be considered by this Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (deceased) through LRs. And others and this Court held: "Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law." After taking into consideration the principle enunciated in the above cited judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law. It is a question of fact. It is not a perverse order and the finding rendered by the trial Court is based on the valid material and evidence. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. As a result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.