Judgment :- The revision petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed O.S.No.1635 of 2002 for mandatory injunction directing the defendants viz., 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by is Chairman, Chennai-2. The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-2. 3.The Superintending Engineer (O & M), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Theni District. 4.The Superintending Engineer (Transmission), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Madurai, not to instal the high tension electricity line over the plaintiffs property without following the procedures and also for an order of mandatory injunction to remove the high tension electricity line put up by the defendants over the plaintiffs property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any manner laying or installing high tension electricity line over the plaintiffs property. The said plaint was rejected by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on the ground that under Section 16(d) of CPC, the suit is not maintainable and after coming to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction, the learned VII Assistant Judge has ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for representing the same before the appropriate forum. The said order is under challenge before this Court in this revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, who would focus the attention of this Court to the proviso to Section 16 of CPC, which reads as follows:- 16.Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate (a) ................. (b) ................. (c) .................. (d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, (e) .................. (f) .................. Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Explanation: In this section "property" means property situate in India." Admittedly the defendants 1 and 2 are in madras. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit has been filed before a wrong forum. 3. In fine, the revision is allowed and the order passed in O.S.No.1635 of 2002 by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 011. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit has been filed before a wrong forum. 3. In fine, the revision is allowed and the order passed in O.S.No.1635 of 2002 by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 011. 2007, is set aside. The learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to restore O.S.No.1635 of 2002 to his file and proceed with the case and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, since it is represented that the entire trial has been completed.