M. Venugopal, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Preamble:

2. The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred the instant Original Side Appeal as against the order dated 21.12.2017 in Application No.6870 of 2017 in C.S.No.402 of 2014 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

3. Earlier, the Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order in A.No.6870 of 2017 in C.S.No.402 of 2014 [filed by the Respondent/3rd Defendant], at paragraph 44, had observed the following:

“44. I have already extracted the prayer in the present suit as well as the allegations made in para 5 of the plaint. A combined reading of para 5 and prayer (a) in the suit would show that the suit is one for specific performance of an agreement which obliged the defendants to put the plaintiff in possession of the property. Therefore, the present suit cannot but be termed as a suit for land. Once it is concluded that the suit is one for land and when admittedly suit property is situated outside the original jurisdiction of this Court, this Court cannot entertain the suit.”

and resultantly, revoked the Leave granted in Application No. 2767 of 2017 on 23.04.2014 and di