In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of proof and must adduce evidence first, even if the defendant has filed a counter-claim for a declaration of right.

Heard, while seeking the admission of this revision, the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, in I.A. No. 482 of 1995 in O.S. 557 of 1993; filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing the defendant to adduce evidence first to prove his case with reference to the relief of declaration asked for in the written statement, is being challenged, for want of its legality and propriety.

2. It is stated that the suit property is a land allotted to the share of the respondent/ plaintiff who filed the suit O.S. No. 557- of 1993 before the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore for the relief of bare injunction, restraining the defendant who is the revision petitioner herein and his men and servants from forming a road in the suit property on the ground that the revision petitioner with the aid of his men, is making every effort to do so. The said allegation is being resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement contending inter-alia that though the land in question was admitted to have been allotted to the plaintiff/respondent, since the defendant is using the suit property to have an access, as easement of necessity, the defendant is entitled to have a road to be formed and that therefore, he claimed a prayer for declaration .of his right to form a road with a view to have an access to take cattles and carts to his property through the suit property. It is, thus a counter claim has been raised in the written statement and to get adjudicated upon the same, it is seen that the defendant has paid proper Court-fee also.

3. In the context of the pleas taken on behalf of both the parties, three issues have been framed by the trial Court. The first one is whether the defendant is entitled to the declaration of his right to form a road in the suit property as prayed for, and the next one is pertaining to the relief asked for by the plaintiff, viz. perpetual injunction and the third one is with regard to the, relief, if any, that are made available to the plaintiff in the suit. When the suit was ripe for trial, this petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, asking the defendant to adduce evidence first, with regard to the first issue. After having heard both the parties, learned Additional District Munsif has accepted the plea of the plaintiff and consequently, passed the impugned order, directing the defendant to begin with the case and adduce the evidence first, instead of the plaintiff. Aggrieved at this, the revision i$ sought to be admitted for the purpose of canvassing the said order.

4. On ordering notice of motion, the respondent entered appearance and accordingly, I have heard the Bar for the respective parties for and against the impugned order. The Bar for the revision petitioner contended that in as much as the relief asked for by the plaintiff is one for bare injunction, restraining the defendant viz., the Revision petitioner and his men from interfering into the suit property for the purpose of forming a road therein and no more relief has been claimed, the impugned order passed by the trial Court directing the defendant to take up the case and adduce evidence the context of the Counter-claim made in the written statement is not correct and that therefore, this Court's revisional jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. To controvert the said contention, it was argued that in so far as the suit property is concerned, the title of the same has not since been disputed and a right to form a road is sought to be declared in the counter-claim, by the defendant and the first issue has been framed to that effect and so, the legal onus lies very heavily upon the defendant and that therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Munsif, is to be justified. It is, thus the admission of the revision was opposed.

5. It was the endeavour of Mr. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff to say that based on the specific plea taken by the defendant in the