JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.08.2018 made in I.A.No.437 of 2018 in O.S.No.569 of 2013 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.)

1. This revision is filed against the order dated 14.08.2018 made in I.A.No.437 of 2018 in O.S.No.569 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the original suit.

3. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.569 of 2013 to declare the suit property as a common pathway and for a permanent prohibitory injunction order. The petitioner has filed a petition in I.A.No.437 of 2018 for examination of additional witnesses and for marking additional documents. That petition was dismissed by the trial Court. As against the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Brief substance of the petition in I.A.No.437 of 2018 is as follows:

The petitioner is having a right over the suit property, which is a common pathway. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. A written statement was filed by the defendants. The case was posted for examination of additional witnesses. Electricity connection was given from the electric post and the evidence of Junior Electrical Engineer of the Electricity Department is necessary to prove that an electric post was erected on the eastern side of the petitioner's house and that the electricity connection was given from the particular post. The petitioner has to prove that the property tax and the water tax are paid by him and to prove those things, the Special Officer, Vadiyur Panchayat Union, Alangulam has to be examined. To prove his ownership in Survey No.374/28 and 29, the Tahsildar, VeeraKeramputhur has to be examined and the documents regarding these facts are to be marked.

5. Brief substance of counter in I.A.No.437 of 2018 is as follows:

The petitioner has filed this suit O.S.No.569 of 2013 regarding Survey No.301/8. The respondents have filed a suit against the petitioner and four others in O.S.No.507 of 2014 and the suit properties in O.S.No.507 of 2014 are Survey No.301/8 and Survey No.374/28 and 29. The respondents filed a petition in I.A.No.37 of 2018 for joint trial of both the suits. In that petition, the petitioner herein has filed a counter affidavit stating that the property in Survey Nos.374/28 and 29 are not connected with the suit properties. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a petition to add Survey No.374/28 and 29 in the list of properties in O.S.No.569 of 2013 and that petition was dismissed by the trial Court. The fifth respondent is incharge of the Special Officer in Vadiyur Panchayat and hence he cannot be examined as petitioner's side witness. Already a commissioner was appointed and he has filed a report with plan, wherein the electricity connection to the house of the petitioner was clearly stated and that there is no necessity to examine the Junior Electrical Engineer to prove the same. Only with the motive to delay the case proceedings, the petitioner has come forward with this petition.

6. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition. The revision petitioner filed this revision against the impugned order.

7. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the lower Court ought to have taken into consideration the existence of the electricity pole in the pathway and that the electricity connection provided by the Electricity Department can be proved only by summoning the official witnesses. The trial Court is erred in giving a finding that the public documents can be proved by marking certified copies.

8. On the side of the revision petitioner, it is further stated that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has to be given an opportunity