Judgment 1. This memorandum of civil revision is directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 05.04.2006 and made in an un-numbered interlocutory application in O.S.No.157 of 2003, on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam, rejecting the interlocutory application seeking the relief of sent for the files relating to the suit property, in respect of which the revision petitioner is seeking rights of pathway, on representative capacity on behalf of villagers. 2. When the revision petition came up for hearing on 06.12.2012, this Court has given a direction to the respondents to produce the files relating to the suit property. In pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondents have also produced the files before this Court and now the files are very much available. 3. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner, on representative capacity on behalf of Therkiruppu Villagers in Vriddhachalam Taluk, has filed a suit in O.S.No.157 of 2003, on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam against the respondents seeking the following reliefs: i. To declare the suit property as common pathway; ii. To issue a direction by way of mandatory injunction to the respondents 2, 3, 7 and 8 to make the suit property as a public pathway; and iii. To grant perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from making disturbance or interference from using the said property by the public as pathway. 4. During pendency of the suit, in order to substantiate his case, the revision petitioner being the plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application to direct the respondents to produce the files relating to the suit property which could through more light on the issue, which is involved in the suit. 5. That interlocutory application was unnumbered and rejected at the admission stage by the learned First Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam on 05.04.2006. 6. Challenging the correctness of the impugned Order dated 05.04.2006, the revision petitioner being the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this memorandum of civil revision. 7. Mr. 5. That interlocutory application was unnumbered and rejected at the admission stage by the learned First Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam on 05.04.2006. 6. Challenging the correctness of the impugned Order dated 05.04.2006, the revision petitioner being the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of this memorandum of civil revision. 7. Mr. T. Jayaramaraj, learned Government Advocate has fairly argued that since the files, which are sought to be produced in the unnumbered interlocutory application, have been produced before this Court, the learned Trial Judge might be directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.157 of 2003 within the prescribed period preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. Keeping in view of the above facts, this Court finds that the revision petition may be allowed after setting aside the impugned Order dated 05.04.2006, passed by the learned First Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam. 10. Since the files, which are produced before this Court seems to be in original, the respondents being the defendants in the suit are directed to produce the copies of the original files along with original for comparison before the Trial Court immediately and after receipt of the copies of the original files and after making comparison, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.157 of 2003, within the prescribed period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order without loss of further time as the suit is relating to the year 2003. 11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 05.04.2006 and made in an interlocutory application in O.S.No.157 of 2003, on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Vriddhachalam is set aside and the unnumbered interlocutory application is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.