KANNAIYAN Vs. SULOCHANA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners/respondents/defendants have projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.08.2008 in C.M.A.No.9 of 2008 passed by the Sub Court, Panruti in allowing the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff as an appellant.

(2.) THE First Appellate Authority viz., the learned Sub Judge, Panruti, while allowing the C.M.A.No.9 of 2008, has inter alia opined that the finding of the trial Court that the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner failed to establish a prima facie title and possession of the suit property is not correct and that the trial Court has conveniently skipped off the title deeds produced by the respondent/plaintiff and gave an erroneous finding etc. and resultantly, has allowed the appeal and granted an order of interim injunction restraining the revision petitioners/ respondents/defendants etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the respondent/plaintiff till the disposal of the suit and subject to the result of the suit.

(3.) AT this juncture, it is relevant to point out that in I.A.No.1201 of 2007 on either side documents have been marked, but no oral evidence has been adduced by the parties. In deciding interlocutory applications the parties can let in oral evidence or they can mark documents. In the instant case, before the trial Court on either side no witnesses have been examined but only documents have been filed and marked.