Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in revision. O. S. No. 137 of 1963, from which this revision arises, was a suit brought by the plaintiff on the strength of a purchase by him of the properties covered by it, from one Kesavan Nair, for an injunction against the defendants who, according to him, were attempting to trespass into her property. An ad interim injunction had been granted during the pendency of the suit. Her counsel states that the injunction has not been dissolved upto now, and so, as matters stand, the defendants have been restrained from even entering the plaint schedule properties and are therefore out of possession. Nevertheless, the plaintiff, by way of abundant caution, has amended her plaint and prayed, alternatively, for recovery of possession on the strength of her title. She contends that the defend in to have put forward a plea of oral lease under Kesavan Nair, her assignor, by colluding with him and getting certain reeipts purporting to have been executed by him during the various years in the past. Her case, as presented before me, appears to be that Kesavan Nair, colluding with the defendants, gave ante-dated receipts; and so, she took the trouble of Sending Up all these receipts, ten of them, to a handwriting expert in Simla for finding out whether they were all executed at about the same time or during different years as they purport to have been executed. It is represented before me by counsel that the expert's opinion is that all the receipts were got up at about the same time, thus disproving the defendants' case that they had been executed on the several dates they purport to bear. 2. The defendants have let in all their evidence, after which the plaintiff has started her evidence. Her husband Has been examined in part as pw.1 and he has taken steps to summon the handwriting expert. While so, the 2nd defendant filed an application for staying the suit under S.8 of the Kerala Act 12 of 1966. The Court stayed the suit and directed the 12th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to prepare a Record of Rights in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff filed a revision against this stay whereupon this Court directed the Munsiff to reconsider the whole matter in the light of the ruling reported in 1968 KLT. 23. The Court stayed the suit and directed the 12th respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, to prepare a Record of Rights in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff filed a revision against this stay whereupon this Court directed the Munsiff to reconsider the whole matter in the light of the ruling reported in 1968 KLT. 23. Even after reconsidering the case in the light of the principles laid down in the above case the mind of the Munsiff has not changed and he has reached the same conclusion. It is against this stay, a second time, that the plaintiff has come up in revision now. 3. It is true that in a suit for eviction if a prima facie case of 'tenancy is made out, the suit must be stayed. But, it must be found as a fact, that there is such a prima facie case. To find whether a case has been made out prima fade, one has to consider the evidence on record and not ignore it. Closing one's eyes to the evidence on record is not coming to a conclusion prima facie, and so, it was the duty of the Munsiff to consider the evidence, oral and documentary already adduced, discuss it briefly and come to a tentative conclusion as to whether there is really a presentable case of tenancy made out by the defendants. This conclusion depends on whether the defendants' oral evidence is at least somewhat reliable, whether the receipts are demonstrably concocted in collusion with Kesavan Nair and whether the plaintiff's evidence is sufficient utterly to destroy the tenancy set up by the defendants. May be, that the expert's opinion may also be considered even without his oral evidence, because we are not at the stage of the trial of the suit, but only arriving at a tentative conclusion. 4. Even in reaching a conclusion as to whether a tenancy has been made out prima facie or not, the parties must have an opportunity to place their evidence. It is pointed out that the plaintiff was half-way through her evidence and that she wanted to complete it and examine the handwriting expert. Whether it be for the suit or for establishing prima facie that there is no tenancy, if she wants such an opportunity, it cannot be denied; although in the scheme of things an elaborate adduction of evidence is not contemplated. Whether it be for the suit or for establishing prima facie that there is no tenancy, if she wants such an opportunity, it cannot be denied; although in the scheme of things an elaborate adduction of evidence is not contemplated. At the same time, some opportunity to place vital material on either side cannot be refused either. 5. The learned Munsiff in this case has made an error of law in treating a 'prima facie' case, as equal to a mere plea of tenancy and in thinking that the evidence on record need not be considered for this purpose. The Court says that the expert's opinion cannot be now looked into for ascertainment of whether a prima facie case has been made out. Why not? It is part of the materials on record and should, therefore, be considered. If there should be insistence by the defendants on the formal examination of the expert and the plaintiff willing to cite him it may be violative of natural justice to refuse her that opportunity. Similarly, the learned Munsiff says that the question of the receipts being issued on the dates on which they are alleged to have been issued is a matter for consideration in the suit. But at the same time it is a matter for consideration in the application and cannot be ignored in the background of the expert's opinion. If the receipts plainly show that they were antedated, I do not see why that circumstance should not be considered even in arriving at a prima facie conclusion. More than all, the burden is on the defendants to make out a prima facie case. The mistake made by the learned Munsiff appears to be that if there is plea of tenancy and some receipts produced, fabricated or not. that is good enough for a stay. He has also ignored the important fact that the very Court which is now stating that there is a prima facie case of tenancy has issued an injunction against the defendants entering the property. In short, there has not been a clear appreciation of what has been indicated in the statute and in Kochukutty v. Abraham Tharakan (1968 KLT. 23). 6. I set aside the order of the learned Munsiff for the reasons set out above and direct him to reconsider the matter in the light of the principles laid down in 1968 KLT 23. 23). 6. I set aside the order of the learned Munsiff for the reasons set out above and direct him to reconsider the matter in the light of the principles laid down in 1968 KLT 23. I make it clear that it is for the defendants to make out a prima facie case. I make it further clear that holding whether a prima facie case has been made out or not involves consideration of the evidence on record, although not elaborately, and remembering that the Court is not reaching a final conclusion but only a tentative one. But even tentative conclusions, judicially arrived at, require consideration of all the material evidence in the case. Indifference to the evidence on record is not the hallmark of 'prima facie consideration'. With these directions, I allow the revision petition. Allowed.