R.S. Ramanathan, J.@mdashThe appellants 2 to 5 in A.S. No. 548 of 2005 on the file of the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are the petitioners. The second respondent herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 4798 of 1997 on the file of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Chennai against the first respondent herein for recovery of possession of the suit property and that suit was decreed as prayed for. The first respondent herein filed A.S. No. 548 of 2005 before the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court ,Chennai and in that appeal, the revision petitioners herein got themselves impleaded as appellants 2 to 5 as per order passed in C.M.P. No. 2025 of 2006 dated 25.09.2006. Thereafter the revision petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 2385 of 2007 under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for appointment of commissioner to note down the physical features of various door numbers stating that those door numbers are in the occupation of the revision petitioners and the first respondent and therefore, those door numbers are to be inspected and their physical features are to be noted. That petition was dismissed and aggrieved by the same this revision is filed.
2. Mr. R. Thiagarajan the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that there is a dispute regarding the identity of the suit property and Door No. 22, Chitrakulam South Street is having two access and new DoorNos.8 and 6 are assigned to that property and therefore, to ascertain the physical features whether the suit property is consisting of a single house or two houses, a commissioner has to be appointed and that was not properly appreciated by the lower appellate court.
3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The suit was filed for delivery of vacant possession of the 3010 sq.ft. situated in Mylapore bearing Door No. 22, Chitrakulam South Street and according to the plaintiff allegations, the vacant land was leased out to Mr. Damodaran Naicker, father of the defendant/first respondent under lease agreement and therefore, the building was constructed by the tenant. Thereafter, the suit was filed only for delivery of vacant possession of the landed property at Door No. 22, Chitrakulam South Street. The suit property was described with boundaries and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the building is having two access and two different door numbers are given and those features have to be noted, need not be considered.
4. Hence, the court below properly appreciated the contention of the parties and dismissed the application andI do not find any infirmity in the order of the court below .However, it is open to the revision petitioner to contend that the suit property is different from the property that was leased out to him in the first appeal and it is for the appellate court to consider the submissions of the appellants, regarding the identity of the property without being influenced by any of the observation made in this petition. The learned V Additional Judge is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
