Inveighing the order dated 19.04.2007, passed by the District Munsif Court, Sirkali in I.A.No.290 of 2007 in O.S.No.168 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. An epitome of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
(i) The first respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit O.S.No.168 of 2003 for recovery of possession of the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. The matter was posted for trial and while the trial was in progress, the defendants 2 and 3 filed I.A.No.290 of 2007 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, with the following prayer:
"To appoint the Taluk Deputy Surveyor, Sirkali to measure the exact extent in the occupation of the petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 in the suit property and its survey number and other features that are necessary for the ends of justice and submit a report with plan."
(ii) After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds, inter alia thus:
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court misdirected itself as though belatedly this application was filed so as to drag on the proceedings, forgetting for a moment that the Commissioner visiting the suit property and measuring the same with the help of the surveyor would enlighten the Court as to whether the defence is probable or not and that too in view of the fact that the defendants have spelt out in the written statement that the suit property is a poromboke land.
4. Perused the records including the order of the lower court. I would like to extract here under the schedule of the property in the plaint:
"Schedule - Description of Property Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai Registration District, Sirkali Sub Registry, Sirkali Taluk, Tadalankoil Vattam, Sirkali Town Railway Road;
R.S.No.46/5 Dry 0 Acre 03 cents East and North of Kazhumalaiar;
West of Plaintiff's manai in the occupation of Shakul Hamed now Mohammed Maidee;
South of Railway Road."
5. A bare perusal of the boundaries with reference to the survey number makes it clear that three cents of land is claimed to be belonging to the plaintiff, wherein the defendants are alleged to be occupying as tenants under the plaintiff.
G.RAJASURIA, J.
gms Hence it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove to the satisfaction of the Court his case and it is not for the defendants to prove anything so long as the burden does not get shifted on them.
6. Further more, I am of the considered opinion that the suit property has been specifically described in the schedule of the plaint and on the defendants' side, the defendants are having the right to summon the revenue officials, to produce the necessary documents with reference to the suit property and by that, very easily it could be found out as to whether the suit property is a poromboke land or not. When such a probability is very much available and that too at a later stage of the suit, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the lower Court need not be interfered with. Accordingly, with the above observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.02.2009 Index : Yes Internet: Yes To District Munsif Court, Sirkali C.R.P.(PD)No.2160 of 2007