Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner, who is plaintiff in the original suit filed this revision petition against the fair and decreetal order dated 28.03.2006 passed in I.A.No.3137 of 2006 in O.S.No.894 of 2004 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as revision petitioner and the defendants in the original suit are referred as respondents here after. 3. The revision petitioner has filed a suit for declaration that he is not a Director of the 2nd respondent company and consequently granted permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding to recover any dues of the 2nd respondent company from the revision petitioner. On the side of the 1st respondent filed detailed written statement and the trial court has framed necessary issues and then the trial was also commenced. 4. In part heard stage, on the side of the revision petitioner one C.K.Simon, who is brother-in-law of the revision petitioner filed a petition and in the affidavit, it is stated that the revision petitioner is not the Director of the 2nd respondent company and he has not shown as Director in the books of Registrar of Companies. In the above said circumstances, the burden of proof lies only on the 1st respondent to prove as to how the revision petitioner can be held to be liable as the Director of the 2nd respondent Company. Therefore, prayed for a direction to direct the 1st respondent/1st defendant to let in oral evidence first. 5. On the side of the respondents filed a detailed counter, in which, it is stated that the revision petitioner as a plaintiff alone to get into the box to give evidence first and therefore, the petition is not at all maintainable. Further, the affidavit filed in support of the above said petition has not filed by the revision petitioner, but, filed by one C.K.Simon, who is brother-in-law of the revision petitioner and on that ground also the above said petition is not maintainable. Further, the affidavit filed in support of the above said petition has not filed by the revision petitioner, but, filed by one C.K.Simon, who is brother-in-law of the revision petitioner and on that ground also the above said petition is not maintainable. Further, it is stated in the counter that the averments made in the above said petition as if the revision petitioner is no way connected with company, is absolutely false, since the revision petitioner himself signed in the application for registration and hence, the revision petitioner being one of the Directors as per the application filed under Tamil Nadu Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 till his retirement from the business with proper communication as prescribed in the provisions of TNGST Act. The revision petitioner jointly and severally liable for the payment of taxes and penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Further, the affidavit filed by brother-in-law of the revision petitioner is not entertainable since he has not connected with the above said company in any way and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. The trial court has considered both sides contentions and finally dismissed the above said petition. Aggrieved over the above said finding of the trial court, this revision petition has been filed. 7. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not filed any affidavit. Only the alleged brother-in-law of the revision petitioner namely one C.K.Simon alone filed the affidavit. No sufficient reason has been stated in the affidavit, for not filing any affidavit by the revision petitioner and only filed by brother-in-law of the revision petitioner. On the sole ground, the petition filed on behalf of the revision petitioner is not maintainable, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. As rightly observed by the trial court, the revision petitioner seeking relief of declaration and other reliefs and therefore, the revision petitioner should have examined witnesses to prove his case at first instance. A careful reading of the pleadings in the above said plaint and written statement revealed that the onus is only on the revision petitioner to prove the contentions and hence the revision petitioner should prove the contentions raised in the plaint by adducing reliable oral and documentary evidence. A careful reading of the pleadings in the above said plaint and written statement revealed that the onus is only on the revision petitioner to prove the contentions and hence the revision petitioner should prove the contentions raised in the plaint by adducing reliable oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the averments made in the written statement the onus is only on the respondents to prove their case and therefore, the respondents should examine their witnesses first. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that since the brother-in-law of the revision petitioner well aware of the facts of the case, he has filed the affidavit and there is no illegality in filing the affidavit by brother-in-law, on behalf of the revision petitioner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) LW 1044 (R.M. Bedi v. M/s. Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd., & another) and submitted that a person who is conversant with the facts of the case, can file the affidavit and therefore, no illegality in the affidavit filed by the third party in the present case. A careful reading of the above said decision revealed that the above said facts are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above said case, the plaintiff in the suit was a old man living in Germany. In the above said circumstances, the counsel on record filed an affidavit by stating that he was well aware of the facts of the case and explained the circumstances under which, the defendant was set exparte and the above said fact was only within the knowledge of the counsel on record, who filed the petition. Therefore, the facts of the above said case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Further, the learned counsel relied on another decision of this Court reported in 2004 (1) LW 433 (Mrs. Bama v. Mrs. Rukiyal Bivi) and submitted that if the defendants in a suit admits the material allegations in the plaint, the defendant may begin at the time of evidence since the onus lies on the defendant and in the instant case, the onus is only on the defendants and hence, the Court may direct the defendants to lead evidence first. Rukiyal Bivi) and submitted that if the defendants in a suit admits the material allegations in the plaint, the defendant may begin at the time of evidence since the onus lies on the defendant and in the instant case, the onus is only on the defendants and hence, the Court may direct the defendants to lead evidence first. In the above said decision itself clearly stated in para 6 reads as under:- ''6. .....If the defendant admits material allegations in the plaint, the defendant may begin. However, the plaintiff must prima facie satisfy that there are reasons to believe that particular thing is within the knowledge of the defendant. If the denial by the defendant is without substance in view of the other admitted facts, the onus lies on the defendant and he must be directed to lead the evidence first.'' 11. A careful perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the written statement in the instant case revealed that the defendant had not admitted the material facts stated in the plaint and therefore, the above said facts in the above said decisions are differs and hence, not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. From the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the trial court has correctly discussed both side contentions and finally dismissed the above said petition and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.