ORDER :

This is an application seeking for review the order passed by this court in CRP NPD No.1059 of 2009 dated 25.02.2019.

2. Earlier, a Civil Revision Petition in CRP NPD No.1059 of 2009 was filed as against the dismissal order of the Trial Court in M.P.No.115 of 2008 in M.P.No.376 of 2007 in E.P.No.321 of 1996 in RCOP No.1698 of 1990. This court by an order dated 25.02.2019, allowed the revision petition and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the restitution petition in M.P.No.623 of 1996 in E.P.No.321 of 1996 filed under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Decree holder, who obtained a decree in O.S.No.1293 of 1995 before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. Originally, one Krishnaveni has filed a Rent Control Petition in RCOP No.1698 of 1990 before the XV Court of Small Causes and obtained an order for eviction. Based on the eviction order, possession was also taken from one Palani, who is the husband of the Kalaiselvi.

4. Thereafter, a suit in O.S.No.1293/1995 came to be filed before the XI Assistant City Civil Court by Kalaiselvi, as against the Krishnaveni for declaration, declaring that the eviction order obtained before the Rent Controller in RCOP No.1698/1990 as null and void. At the same time, the above Krishnaveni, who obtained the orders from the Rent Controller, has filed a suit in O.S.No.10351/1996 before the same court, challenging the transfer of the property in the name of Kalaiselvi, based on the sale transaction entered into between Krishnaveni and Kalaiselvi. Both the suits were tried together and the suit filed by Kalaiselvi was decreed, by setting aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the suit filed by the Krishnaveni in O.S.No.10351/1996 came to be dismissed. Both the suits reached finality, since no appeal whatsoever filed.

5. In the meanwhile, after passing of the orders of the Rent Controller, a petition in M.P.No.623 of 1996 appears to have been filed by Kalaiselvi, under Section 144 of CPC, for restitution of her possession before the XV Small Causes Court. When the petition was pending for delivery of possession, the first petitioner herein, son of Krishnaveni, filed a petition in M.P.No.376 of 2007, under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC for obstruction. Kalaiselvi filed a petition in M.P.No.115 of 2008 in M.P.No.376 of 2007 in E.P.No.321 of 1996 in RCOP No.1698 of 1990 to reject the above petition in M.P.No.376/2007, filed by the petitioner herein and the same was negatived by the Tiral Court, which triggered in filing CRP No.1059/2009. This court by an order dated 25.02.1990 has found that the application pending before the Rent Controller for restitution of the possession of the property can be ordered under Section 144 of CPC and directed the Trial Court to proceed further expeditiously.

6. At this stage, the present review application has been filed contending that the application for restitution ought to have been filed only before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai which passed an order annulling the order passed by the Rent Controller, otherwise, the main contention is that this court has no jurisdiction to pass the order. Therefore, the review application has been filed.

7. Heard Mr.R.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that as per the explanation (b) of Section 144 of CPC, the restitution petition ought to have been filed before the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in which the order passed by the Rent Controller has been annulled. Otherwise, his contention is that clause (b) of the explanation of Section 144 of CPC will apply to the present case. Therefore, the petition in M.P.No.623 of 1996 for restitution of possession of the property, before the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai is not maintainable in law and it has no jurisdiction to entertain the above petition.