ORDER : These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 31 of 2018 now pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam. 2. The suit had been instituted by the plaintiff taking advantage of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for restitution of the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. 3. The defendants had entered appearance and also had joined issues with the averment made by filing written statements. Issues had been framed. Parties had grazed the witness box. The evidence had also been tested during the cross examination. Thereafter, finally after meandering around various Interlocutory Applications, the suit is now at the stage of advancing arguments and delivery of Judgment. 4. At that stage, the plaintiff thought it was necessary to file three Interlocutory Applications, namely, I.A.Nos. 4, 6 and 7 of 2019. These applications have been filed seeking permission to reopen the suit and receive documents and evidence of PW-1, to permit to play the video cassette marked as Exs. A-15, 16, 17 & 20 in the Court hall before both the counsels and to produce the compact disc with respect to the video cassette which had been marked as Exs. A15, 16, 17 & 20. 5. A counter had been filed on behalf of the defendants objecting to the said requests and stating that the said applications have been filed at the time of arguments and delivery of Judgment. The learned Judge also was of the same opinion by an order dated 19.03.2020, had dismissed all the three applications. The frustration is evident on the face of the order itself. He had pointed out the flow of the trial and printed out that more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to the plaintiff to adduce evidence and had also stated the various dates in which trial had proceeded. He also pointed out that a Commissioner had also been appointed and had filed his report. He also pointed out that the plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1 and that her husband was examined as PW-2. The documents, namely, the video cassette had also been marked even though they have to be categorised as electronic evidence, without any objection and that as a matter of fact, on behalf of the plaintiff, 24 documents had been marked. He also pointed out that the plaintiff herself was examined as PW-1 and that her husband was examined as PW-2. The documents, namely, the video cassette had also been marked even though they have to be categorised as electronic evidence, without any objection and that as a matter of fact, on behalf of the plaintiff, 24 documents had been marked. The defendants for good measure also let in evidence and marked 29 documents. The Advocate Commissioner was also examined as CW-1. Arguments had also been advanced by both the sides and thereafter, the counsel for the plaintiff took time to advance reply arguments. At that stage, these applications came to be filed. 6. Learned Additional District Judge had then entered into a discussion on the admissibility of electronic documents and had referred to, more particularly, the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Anvar Vs. P.K.Basheer & Others [CDJ 2014 SC 790] and also a subsequent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafi Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, [ (2018) 2 SCC 801 ], which touched upon admissibility of electronic evidence and imperativeness of certificate Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. Let me not join issue by stating a few further Judgments particularly the Judgment reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 , Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Others, on reference by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to admissibility of electronic evidence and necessity to produce certificate as stipulated in Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 8. I refrain from such exercise for the reason that the evidence available on record should be analaysed by the learned Additional District Judge. It is only expected that evidence, which are available would be examined and analysed. 9. During the course of analysis, issues would arise with respect to admissibility, relevancy and whether the documents or electronic evidence had been proved in manner known to law and whether such documents or electronic evidence are germane to the issues in the case. These are primary considerations which would be examined and thereafter the contents of those documents/electronic evidence would also be looked into. 10. These are primary considerations which would be examined and thereafter the contents of those documents/electronic evidence would also be looked into. 10. I would give a free hand to the learned III Additional District Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam to have the pleasure and privilege of examining all the documents/electronic evidence marked in the instant case in O.S.No. 31 of 2018 keeping in mind their admissibility, relevancy and proof and I am confident that a Judgment would be delivered in due course touching upon all relevant issues. 11. Filing of applications, particularly, to reopen and to play the video cassette in open Court cannot be insisted upon. Parties to a suit cannot direct the manner how a Court should examine a particular document or electronic evidence. If the learned Additional District Judge is of the opinion that the video cassette marked as Exs. A-15, 16, 17 & 20 can be viewed and should be viewed, I am confident that he would take necessary steps to view the same and thereafter come to a just conclusion on the issues in the suit. It is purely a discretion of the Additional District Judge. Therefore, applications filed to call upon the Court to play video cassette in open Court in the presence of the parties cannot be encouraged. 12. I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed and I would rather repose faith in the learned III Additional District Judge, that a considered Judgment would be passed on the basis of the available records in the suit and I am confident that any Court of the first instance would settle all disputed facts. 13. I would also by way of a passing remark request the learned III Additional District Judge to bestow some attention and try to dispose of the suit on or before 31.08.2021 since arguments have already been advanced. 14. These Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.