R. CHENDILVEL Vs. G. DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 11-01-2013 made in I.A.No.711 of 2013 in O.S.No.329 of 2013 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit, that was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 from alienating or encumbering the suit property to any third party.

(3.) The Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 711 of 2013 was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 hereinunder Order 2, Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to file a comprehensive suit for seeking specific performance on later stage on the same cause of action. The first respondent, as plaintiff, has stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai on 07.04.1944 when the first defendant's forefather purchased the property, vide Doc.No.1241/44 and the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff was entered into at Chennai, after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- in Chennai at the office of the plaintiff and when signed the agreement by the plaintiff and defendant. In the cause of action paragraph, the first respondent/plaintiff has not stated the date of the agreement for sale. However, in the list of document filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (1) & (2), CPC, the first respondent/plaintiff has stated Document No.1, agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated 08.10.2012 and also Memorandum of Understanding, dated 02-08-2012. The xerox copy of the memorandum of understanding filed in the typed set of papers would show that it is only an unregistered agreement between the plaintiff and the other party.