PERIYATHAMBI @ MEYYAR Vs. DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/respondents/ defendants have preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 27.1.2009 in I.A.No. 1110 of 2008 in O.S.No. 391 of 2006 passed by the learned District Munsif, Pudukkottai, in allowing the application filed by the respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to harvest the paddy cultivated in the suit lands with the help of the Village Administrative Officer and police and to deposit the sale proceeds into the Court.

(2.) THE trial Court while allowing I.A.No. 1110 of 2008 in O.S.No. 391 of 2006 has appointed one Thiru. Ravichandran, Advocate, as Advocate Commissioner and has directed him to harvest the paddy in the petition mentioned property with the help of the Village Administrative Officer and machineries and to sell the harvested paddy to the marketing committee and to deposit the sale proceeds into the Court etc.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners urges before this Court that the revision petitioners are the cultivating tenants of the suit lands and the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff is a recent purchaser from the erstwhile absentee landlords of the suit lands with notice of the petitioners' tenancy right and as a matter of fact, the revision petitioners have filed the petitions before the record of tenancy Tahsildar, Pudukottai against the landlords to enter the name as the tenants to the respective lands under their cultivation and that the present suit has been filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff as a counter blast and further, the respondent has also filed an application to implead her in the proceedings before the record of tenancy Tahsildar and moreover, the I.A.No. 703 of 2006 in O.S.No. 391 of 2006 filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has been allowed by the trial Court and as against the said order, C.M.A.No. 2 of 2009 has been filed by the revision petitioners and in I.A.No. 2 of 2009 in C.M.A.No. 2 of 2009, the learned Sub Judge, Pudukkottai, has stayed the order of the trial Court in I.A.No. 703 of 2006 in O.S.No. 391 of 2006 and therefore, the trial Court has precluded in law to pass order appointing an Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No. 1110 of 2008, to harvest the crops in the suit lands in defiance of the stay order and therefore, the said order is vitiated, being tainted with illegality and impropriety and that the revision petitioners are poor agricultural tenants who are solely relying upon the suit lands for their livelihood and their existence and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to prevent miscarriage of justice.