1. The Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, being aggrieved, as against the order dated 07.12.2010 in I.A.No.751 of 2010 in O.S.No.282 of 2007 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee.

2. The Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, while passing the impugned order in I.A.No.751 of 2010 in O.S.No.282 of 2007, on 07.12.2010, has, among other things, observed that '... The taluk surveyor has given his report that S.No.7 was subdivided into 56A, B, D, D, and E. The S.No.56/A stands in the name of respondent's vendor Jayaram Naidu. The FMB sketch and Adangal shows the alleged sub division. From the pleads and materials available on records it is understood that the suit property was identified to be situated in S.No.7/56 and not in S.No.7/7. Even then it is unknown whether there is an existence of land in S.No.7/7/ or not?. If S.No.7 was sub divided as 56 A, B, C, D and E, what is the position of S.No.7/7. In S.No.7 whether the S.No.7/7 is part and parcel, what S.No.7/7 is in existence are all now the question that arises in the mind of this Court. Like S.No.7 was identified as S.No.56 A, B, C, D and E. It is essential to ide