JUDGMENT :- 1. These civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the fair and final orders of the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 16.4.2003 made in C.M.A.Nos.32, 33 and 34 of 2002 respectively, setting aside the orders of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 8.1.2002 made in I.A.Nos.12685, 12686 and 15727 of 2001 in O.S.No.4468 of 2001 respectively. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.4468 of 2001 before the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, who is the petitioner herein filed the said suit against the respondents herein for declaration that she alone has got beneficial interest under the settlement deed dated 28.12.1984 executed by late N.K.Ansar Ali said to be her husband, in her favour in respect of suit 'A' schedule property, for mandatory injunction directing respondents 1 to 5 herein, who are defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit, to quit and deliver vacant possession of the first floor of the suit property, which is described in the plaint 'B' schedule property and for other incidental reliefs. In the said suit, she has taken out three applications in I.A.Nos.12685, 12686 and 15727 of 2001. The first application was for interim injunction against respondents 1 to 5 herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and the possession of the tenants and enjoyment over the suit 'A' schedule property. In the second application, the petitioner has sought for an order of interim injunction against respondents 1 to 6 herein from collecting rents from the tenants viz., respondents 7 to 12. The third application was filed under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. for appointment of a Receiver for maintenance of the suit property excluding the first floor and also supervise and to collect rents from the tenants. 3. The learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, by an order dated 8.1.2002 allowed those applications. Respondents 1 to 5, aggrieved over the same, filed three appeals in C.M.A.Nos.32, 33 and 34 of 2002 before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned appellate Judge, by his fair and decretal order dated 16.4.2003, reversed the orders of the learned trial Judge thereby allowed the appeals. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present civil revision petitions. 4. The learned appellate Judge, by his fair and decretal order dated 16.4.2003, reversed the orders of the learned trial Judge thereby allowed the appeals. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present civil revision petitions. 4. I have gone through the entire records, fair and final orders of the learned trial Judge and judgment and decree of the learned appellate Judge. The suit is of the year 2001 and hence, it would be desirable to direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of the suit itself. The learned appellate Judge has disposed of the appeals holding in favour of respondents 1 to 5 as early as 16.4.2003 and it would not be desirable to set at naught the said judgment and decree in the year 2011. Hence, as stated already, it would be more appropriate to direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of the suit, which has been filed in the year 2001. That apart, the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Judge is on sound footing, which need no necessity to interfere at this stage. 5. Taking such view, all the civil revision petitions are disposed of with a direction to the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.4468 of 2001 at the earliest, in any event, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.