M KAREEMKANI Vs. C JEYAVEERAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision petition, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 06.06.2017, made in I.A.No.466 of 2017 in O.S.No.130 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam, are being challenged by the defendants.

(2.) The respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction. The petitioners / defendants have disputed the claim of the respondent / plaintiff for sustaining the reliefs sought for in the suit and accordingly, it is found that in order to establish his case, the respondent / plaintiff has to produce acceptable and convincing materials in the suit. It is found that the parties went for trial on the basis of the pleadings set out by them as above mentioned and accordingly, it is found that the evidence on the side respondent / plaintiff had been closed and on the side of the petitioners / defendants, D.W.1 was examined in chief and partly cross- examined. At that stage of the matter, an application has been preferred by the respondent / plaintiff seeking for an appointment of the Commission to note down the physical features of the property involved in the matter as the noting of the physical features of the property by the Commissioner would be essential to adjudicate the issues involved in the matter. The above said application of the respondent / plaintiff was stoutly resisted by the petitioners / defendants contending that there is no need for noting the physical features of the property as claimed by the respondent / plaintiff and the respondent / plaintiff having laid the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction, it is for him to establish his possession of the property concerned by reliable materials and without the same, the attempt of the respondent / plaintiff to further delay the proceedings by seeking the appointment of the Commission to note down the physical features as such is not germane for the rendering of the decision in the suit in any manner and hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) It is found by the Court below that considering the reasons given by the respondent / plaintiff for the appointment of the Commission to note down the physical features and further when the petitioners / defendants have resisted the case of the respondent / plaintiff in their evidence as to the physical features obtaining therein, particularly as to the existence of the nature of the Wells situated therein as the said Wells are round Wells or square Wells and the irrigation facility available in the property and when according to the respondent / plaintiff, there are three square Wells in the property and the Wells are fitted with motor pumpset and the irrigation facility is done by embedding pipelines underneath the ground, according to the Court below, the above features are essential to be noted by the Commissioner for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the matter and hence, allowed the application preferred by the respondent / plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.