C.R.P (PD) No.4167 of 2011 has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order, striking off the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.502 of 2011 pending on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore.

2. C.R.P (PD).No.266 of 2012 has been filed challening the order, dated 21.11.2011 made in I.A.No.810 of 2011 in I.A.No.679 of 2011 in O.S.No.502 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore. Both the revisions are arising out of the suit in O.S.No.502 of 2011.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (PD).No.4167 of 2011 be dismissed as not pressed.

4. It is seen that the suit in O.S.No.502 of 2011 was filed by the respondent / plaintiff, seeking a money decree for Rs.15 lakhs to be paid with subsequent interest and costs. In the said suit, Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.679 of 2011 was filed by the respondent / plaintiff, under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit property with the help of a qualified senior Civil Engineer to find out the actual cost of construction of the buildings mentioned in the petition. Earlier, I.A.No.678 of 2011 was filed by the respondent / plaintiff, seeking temporary injunction restraining the petitioners / defendants from proceeding with the further work of construction activities in the petition mentioned sites.

5. In the accompanying affidavit relating to I.A.No.810 of 2011 filed in I.A.No.679 of 2011, the respondent / plaintiff has stated that he had sought for appointment of Commissioner to find out the actual cost of construction on the date of the visit of the Advocate-Commissioner. As per the order passed in I.A.No.679 of 2011, Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features and to file his report and plan. The respondent / plaintiff herein has further stated in the affidavit filed before the Court below that the Advocate-Commissioner had filed his report. The petitioners herein subsequently, appeared through their counsel, hence, it necessitated to remit back the warrant of commission to the Advocate-Commissioner, to revisit once again the property with the help of a qualified Civil Engineer and to find out the actual cost of the building constructed, as on the date of his revisit. The respondent / plaintiff has stated that directing the Commissioner to revisit the property and to file his report would minimize unnecessary oral evidence.

6. The revision petitioners / defendants filed their separate counter affidavit, wherein they have stated that the respondent / plaintiff has admitted that he had not done any work, after March 2011. According to the petitioners / defendants, the respondent herein did not work after 15.02.2011 and the respondent would admit that another contractor was doing the construction work but pretends as if it was being done after filing of the suit by him. According to the revision petitioners / defendants, the work of the respondent was stopped either in the month of February 2011 or March 2011, hence, an attempt to seek an order directing the Commissioner to have revisit of the property and fix the cost is not legally permissible and it would be an fraudulent attempt.

7. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the relief sought for in the plaint, the alleged cause of action and the prayer sought for in the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.810 of 2011. As contended by the learned Senior counsel, admittedly it is a money suit, seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to be paid by the petitioners / defendants with subsequent interest and costs.

8. In the plaint, the respondent / plaintiff has averred that the cause of action arose on 10.03.2010, when the plaintiff and the defendants signed the working sheet relating to the construction of building on the suit sites; when