Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a claimant before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai. He has filed the compensation case, which is registered as W.C.No.135 of 2009. After notice to the respondents 2 and 3, the trial has begun in the said case. The 2nd respondent is an Engineer and the 3rd respondent is a Maistry. The petitioners claim was that due to the heavy shock in the building constructed at 5th Cross Street, Mangala Nagar, Chennai, he has sustained grievous injuries and he has lost his finger in left hand and legs and his right hand is also paralyzed and he is still undergoing treatment. It is the stand of the petitioner that his evidence is complete and the 2nd respondents evidence is also complete. The 3rd respondent according to the petitioner, was also set ex-parte. 2. At this stage, the 2nd respondent filed I.A.No.5 of 2011 to reopen the case on his side and to mark certain documents including the agreement between him and one M/s.Kaviya Properties Private Limited. In I.A.No.5 of 2011, notice was ordered to the petitioner. He had also filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 17.2.2011. In the counter affidavit, he had stated that the document need not be received, as there are no averments to that effect in the proof affidavit and the documents are also having certain discrepancies and it may a be put up document. Since the matter is not a civil dispute and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in dealing with the case is only a summary procedure, this attempt of the contesting respondents is only to prolong the trial and therefore the reopening and receiving of the additional documents should not be allowed. 3. The 1st respondent Commissioner after hearing both parties and on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application held that since the trial is not complete and in order to give one more opportunity to the parties, there will not be any prejudice caused to the petitioner. With reference to the nature of evidence and the character of the document, that can be decided only at the time of argument and at this stage it is justified and proper. The proceedings will have to be reopened so as to receive the documents filed by the contesting respondent. With reference to the nature of evidence and the character of the document, that can be decided only at the time of argument and at this stage it is justified and proper. The proceedings will have to be reopened so as to receive the documents filed by the contesting respondent. In that view of the matter, by the impugned order dated 9.8.2011 made in W.C.I.A.No.5 of 2011 in W.C.No.135 of 2009, he allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, he has come before this Court. 4. The contentions raised in the affidavit are more or less are the same as set out in the counter affidavit filed in I.A.No.5 of 2011. Though it is stated that such an application is not maintainable, it is not clarified as to how such an application is not maintainable. Admittedly, the trial is not complete and as rightly held by the Commissioner, the petitioner cannot be said to be a prejudice person if the documents are received. 5. It must be noted that the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is clothed with a power of a Civil Court under Section 23 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and for enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling proof of documents and material objection and he is deemed to be a Civil Court. The Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code gives power to recall and examine any witnesses. Ultimately, the purpose of trial is to find out the truth and render a decision according to the stand of the parties after the summon is to put to test by way of examination of witnesses and cross-examination. 6. Though the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed in the Workmen Compensation Case as well as before this Court raised a doubt regarding the genuineness of the document, as held by the Commissioner, that is a matter for arguments and at the stage of receipt of document, an opposition cannot be made. If this Writ Petition is admitted and finally heard, it will only prejudice the case of the petitioner in getting the compensation at an early date. Certainly the Courts at the stage of interim application is reluctant to entertain any Writ Petition. Under Section 30 of Workmens Compensation Act, only against the final order an appeal lies to this Court by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Certainly the Courts at the stage of interim application is reluctant to entertain any Writ Petition. Under Section 30 of Workmens Compensation Act, only against the final order an appeal lies to this Court by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Therefore, the very purpose of providing an appeal is to go into both the questions of fact and laws. The Courts have time and again held that the Writ Petition of this nature is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is a final remedy by way of appeal. 7. Under the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.