K RAJASEKARAN Vs. K SAKUNTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Original Application No.548 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from creating any encumbrance over the Plaint A and B schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) APPLICATION No.3633 of 2008 is filed by defendants 1 to 4 and APPLICATION No.3837 of 2008 is filed by defendants 5 to 10 seeking to vacate the ex parte order of interim injunction granted to the applicant/plaintiff on 30.4.2008.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the voluminous documents produced on the side of the applicant would go to show prima facie that the applicant was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Despite the fact that the applicant was ready with the Pay Order and the cash to make the payment of the balance of sale consideration, the respondents did not turn up and therefore, there was no execution of the sale deed prior to the date of expiry of the agreement entered into between the parties. The very fact that the applicant could pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement and the Pay Order obtained for Rs.42,80,000/- would go to show that he had wherewithal to clinch the sale transaction. The caveat was also lodged by the respondents only after the applicant had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It is his further submission that though the property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court, as the material part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and no relief for recovery of possession was sought in the Suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale, the leave has been rightly granted by this Court. Therefore, he would submit that the order of injunction granted by this Court will have to be made absolute.