JAGANATHAN Vs. KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIM-adverting upon the order dated dated 18.2.2008 passed in I.A.No.12 of 2008 in O.S.No.105 of 2007 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.

(2.) A summation and summarisation of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the civil revision petition, could be portrayed thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.NO.105 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) IN these factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that in a suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain the petitioner/defendant from interfering with the alleged rights of the respondent/plaintiff over a cart track, the Court should have a clear view of it. The respondent/plaintiff being the dominus litis as well as the party, who is bound to prove the case beyond doubt, has to very well put forth his evidence. However, when the petitioner/defendant comes forward to enlighten further the Court by placing before the Court the physical features, the Court is not justified in simply rejecting it as though it is one for fishing out evidence. I am at a loss to understand as to what evidence the petitioner/defendant was trying to fish out by getting appointed such a Commissioner.