Animadverting upon the order dated 24.03.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif, Perambalur in I.A.No.389 of 2008 in O.S.No.222 of 1997, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision as stood exposited from the records could tersely and briefly, pithily and precisely be set out thus:
The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.222 of 1997 as against the defendants seeking declaration and permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff's vendor purchased the suit property from the ancestors of defendants 1 to 3; the said ancestors of D1 to D3 got the suit property by way of assignment from the Government; while so, the defendants 1 to 3 in order to have the saddistic pleasure of depriving the plaintiff to have ownership over the suit property approached the Tahsildar concerned for cancelling the very assignment in favour of their ancestors on the ground that the suit property was sold to the vendor of the plaintiff, violating the conditions of assignment. However, the said application was dismissed by the Tahsildar concerned. Now the plaintiff wants to place reliance on such dismissal of the petition so as to buttress and fortify his claim relating to the suit property. However, the trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner, which was filed under Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present revision has been filed.
3. Though notice was served on the respondents, no one represented.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court was not justified in simply discarding and belittling the evidence, which is sought to be relied on by the plaintiff as though it is a pococurante one.
5. I am fully in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because the very dismissal of the said application by respondents 1 to 3 for cancellation of the assignment in favour of their ancestors relating to the suit property, is in favour of the title of the plaintiff and in such a case, I am of the view that the lower Court was wrong in dismissing the application of the petitioner, which was filed under Section 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, so as to enable him to obtain a certified copy of the dismissal order of the Tahsildar and to produce the same before the lower Court.
6. In these circumstances the order dated 24.03.2008 passed by the learned District Munsif is set aside and the following direction is issued:
"The trial Court shall issue a Certificate to the plaintiff in accordance with Rule 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice, whereupon the plaintiff shall produce the same to the Tahsildar concerned and obtain a certified copy of the said dismissal order of the Tahsildar and shall file the same in the trial Court."
7. With the above direction, this civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.