A RAVICHANDRAN Vs. R SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.1191 of 2016 in O.S.No.393 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, the plaintiffs have filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.393 of 2016 for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the defendant took out an application in I.A.No.1191 of 2016 seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner since the identity of the property is in dispute. The plaintiffs filed their counter and opposed the petition stating that there is no necessity for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and that the Surveyor's report and Commissioner's report will not help to decide the issue in a suit for bare injunction. The trial Court, taking into consideration the case of both parties, allowed the application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner in a suit for bare injunction.

(3.) The issue that has to be decided is with regard to the possession of the parties. It is also settled position that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have to establish their case by adducing oral and documentary evidences. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs have stated that there is no necessity for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to identify the suit property. Since the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their case, they should discharge the burden of proof by adducing proper evidence.