M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred the instant Original Side Appeal (as an affected person) as against the Judgment dated 31.01.2014 in C.S.No.857 of 2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge in dismissing the Civil Suit.

2. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the Learned Single Judge in the main suit in C.S.No.857 of 2009 for the Issue No.1 viz., Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction for deciding and trying the suit?, at para 10 of the Judgment had observed the following:

“10. In the present case, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the sale agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were executed at Chennai. In his evidence, he admitted that the agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 do not state that they were signed at Chennai. Quite contrary to his statement, PW.2 Perumal one of the attestors to the agreements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 has admitted in his cross examination that Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were executed in Pondicherry. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that the earlier suit filed by the Plaintiff in respect of the suit properties, on the basis of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 was filed in Pondicherry Court. The Defendants neither resided nor car