ORDER 1. These two memorandum of civil revisions are directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 28.04.2004 and made in I.A.Nos.6226 and 6227 of 2004 in O.S.No.7737 of 1998, on the file of the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The revision petitioner appears to have been filed a suit in O.S.No.7737 of 1998 against the respondents herein on the file of the learned XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.47,800/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.32,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization. 3. The defendants have also contested the suit by filing their written statement. Trial was commenced and one Mr. Madanlal, who is none other than the husband of the plaintiff Mrs. Indu Devi, was examined as P.W.1 and during the course of his examination Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Witnesses were also examined on the side of the defendants and after completion of examination of witnesses on both sides the suit was listed for arguments on the following dates: 15.03.2004, 17.03.2004, 23.03.2004, 24.03.2004, 26.03.2004, 30.03.2004 and 31.03.2004. 4. Only at that stage, two interlocutory applications viz., I.A.Nos.6226 and 6227 of 2004 were taken out to recall P.W.1 as well as to reopen the evidence on the side of the plaintiff. This was strongly objected to by the respondents. 5. After hearing both sides, these two interlocutory applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on 28.04.2004 on the ground that Mr. Manoj M. Jain, who is none other than the son of the plaintiff Mrs. Indu Devi, does not have any competency to swear the affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff. 6. Challenging the correctness of the impugned Order dated 28.04.2004, these two civil revision petitions have been preferred before this Court by the plaintiff. 7. As rightly argued by Mr. K.S. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents the deponent Mr. Manoj M. Jain, who is the son of the plaintiff as well as P.W.1, is not having any locus standi to file the petition or to swear the affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff. 8. As it reveals from the Order of the Trial Court, Mr. Madanlal, who is the husband of the plaintiff Mrs. Indu Devi, alone was authorized to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 8. As it reveals from the Order of the Trial Court, Mr. Madanlal, who is the husband of the plaintiff Mrs. Indu Devi, alone was authorized to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. But, if at all, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, any application is to be filed either to recall the P.W.1 or to reopen the plaintiff's side evidence, the plaintiff alone is having competency to file the application, instead Mr. Manoj M. Jain, who is not at all connected with the suit and being a stranger, could not have competency to file the application on behalf of the plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly admitted this fact and he has urged before this Court that recalling of P.W.1 is absolutely necessary and unless P.W.1 is recalled and examined further, the plaintiff, who is the revision petitioner herein, would be put into irreparable loss and hardship and therefore he has requested this Court to give liberty to the plaintiff to file fresh applications before the Trial Court for the above said purpose. 10. Mr. K.S. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also conceded that let the revision petitioner approach the Trial Court and get the appropriate relief. 11. Keeping in view of the above fact, these civil revision petitions are dismissed with a liberty to the revision petitioner to approach the Trial Court for getting appropriate relief and if any application is filed by the revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.7737 of 1998, the learned Trial Judge is directed to consider that application on merits and dispose the suit within the prescribed period, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, as the suit is related to the year 1998. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.