(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.382 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam and the plaintiffs filed the suit, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his men and agents from entering the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.889 of 2013 for withholding the proceedings of the suit till the disposal of petitions in Record of Tenancy Right P.Nos.33 and 34 of 2013 by the Record of Tenancy Right Officer (Tahsildar), Thiruvidaimarudur and the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court, stating that there is no need to stay the trial of the suit merely on account of the pendency of petitions before the Record of Tenancy Right Officer (Tahsildar), Thiruvidaimarudur. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioner that he is a lessee under the plaintiff and he had submitted petitions before the Record of Tenancy Right Officer (Tahsildar), Thiruvidaimarudur for renewal of the lease and the dispute is interlinked. It is the further case of the petitioner that the concerned Officer has not taken any decision on the petitions and as such, if the trial in the suit is allowed to continue, it will have a bearing in the decision to be taken on the petitions. The Trial Court, without considering the very foundation of the proceedings, has simply held that the issues before the Trial Court as well as Land Record Officer are different.
(3.) The contentions of the petitioner are stoutly refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, stating that first of all, the revision petitioner is neither a tenant nor a lessee under the plaintiff/respondent and no material particulars have been produced before the Court as to the exact date of lease. In support of his contention, he has referred to the Paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.889 of 2013, which reads as under: