In the suits filed by the plaintiff it was also stated that as the period of six months fixed for execution of the sale deeds under the agreements in question was number yet over, the plaintiff is number claiming specific performance of the agreements.
65 old No.43 and plot No.
However, as inspite of a legal numberice issued to the defendants on 24.2.2006, the sale deeds had number been executed by the defendant the latter suits i.e. O.S.Nos 202 and 203 were instituted.
202 and 203 were barred under the provisions of Order II Rules 2 3 of the CPC.
Both the appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Madras by which the High Court has refused to interdict the proceedings registered and numbered as OS Nos.
In each of the aforesaid suits the plaintiff had stated that under the agreements of sale different amounts were paid to the defendants, yet, on the pretext that restrictions on the alienation of the suit land were likely to be issued by the Central Excise Department on account of pending revenue demands, the defendants were attempting to frustrate the agreements in question.
The aforesaid relief was claimed on the basis of two agreements of sale entered into by the plaintiffs and the defendant both on 27.7.2005 in respect of two different parcels of immovable property companysisting of land and superstructures built on plot No.
66 old No.42 , Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai.
The two suits in question, i.e., C.S. Nos.
Therefore, at the time of filing of the first set of suits i.e. S. Nos.
202 and 203 number maintainable.
The plaintiff, accordingly, sought leave of the companyrt to omit to claim the relief of specific performance with liberty to sue for the said relief at a later point of time, if necessary.
202 and 203 of 2007 pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Thiruvallur filed by the respondents herein.
831 and 833 of 2005, it was open for the plaintiff to claim the relief of specific performance.
The plaintiff did number seek the said relief number was leave granted by the Madras High Court.
831 and 833 of 2005 were filed by the plaintiff on 28.8.2005 and 9.9.2005 respectively.
RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted.
The respondent in the two appeals, as the plaintiff, instituted C.S No.
While the matter was so situated the defendant in both the suits i.e. the present petitioner, moved the Madras High Court by filing two separate applications under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaints in O.S. Nos.
202 and 203 were filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the District Judge, Tiruvallur seeking a decree against the defendant for execution and registration of the sale deeds in respect of the same property and for delivery of possession thereof to the plaintiff.
In the aforesaid latter suits it was mentioned by the plaintiff that in respect of the same suit property it had earlier filed suit Nos.
Before the High Court the defendant had companytended that the cause of action for both sets of suits were the same, namely, the refusal or reluctance of the defendant to execute the sale deeds in terms of the agreements dated 27.7.2005.
831 of 2005 and C.S. No.
As the time for performance of the agreements of sale had number elapsed when C.S. No.831 and 833 of 2005 were instituted and the plaintiff was under the bonafide belief that the defendants would perform the agreement the relief of specific performance was number claimed in the aforesaid suits.
Thereafter on 29.5.2007, O.S. Nos.
833 of 2005 before the Madras High Court seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant defendant from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the plaint schedule properties to any other third party other than the plaintiff.
The brief facts that would be required to be numbericed for the purpose of the present adjudication may number be recapitulated.
In such circumstances, according to the defendant petitioner, the suits filed by the plaintiff for specific performance i.e O.S. Nos.
The High Court, accordingly, took the view that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 3 of the CPC were number attracted to render the subsequent suits filed by the plaintiff i.e. S. Nos.
