( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose of LA. 11674/98 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Order XXXVIII Rule 5 along with the plaint. In the plaint it has been prayed that a decree be passed for-Rs. 55,84,000. 00 together -with pendents lite and future interest at the rate of twenty four percent per annum. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the disputes between the parties are that the Plaintiff was interested in purchasing land in Maharashlra for the setting up of a fresh industrial unit in that State. The Defendants represented to the Plaintiffs that they were holding land measuring fifty two (52) acres situated in Village Isambe, Taluka Khalapur, district Raigard, Maharashtra. The Defendants also owned a stone crusher and;a 75 KVA generator on the land. a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the purchase of the land and the stone crusher and electrical and mechanical fixtures was entered into between the parties for a total consideration of Rs. 1. 77 crores. This MOU was executed at Delhi. It was agreed that the entire transaction would be completed by 31. 10. 1998 and that although four different documents were drawn up, these would be treated as a single transaction. A sum of Rs. 6 lacs was paid to the Defendants on the execution of this MOU. Thereafter three different Agreements to sell, each dated 3. 4. 1998 were executed at Delhi. As recorded therein a sum of Rs. 7 lacs was paid to Defendant No. 1, two lacs to Defendant No. 2 and 1 lac to Defendant No. 3 Another payment of Rs. 16 lacs was made on 29. 7. 1998 thus aggregating Rs. 32 lacs. The receipt of these moneys are not contradicted or controvert. It is, however, averred by the Defendants that the Plaintiff, having failed to obtain necessary loans had engineered the facts in such a manner as to show that the Defendants had failed to fulfil their obligations contained in the Agreement to Sell, and, that consequently the Plaintiff was entitled to repudiate the contract. In their joint Written Statement the Defendants state that they are and have been ready and willing to perform the compact between the parties and that it is the Plaintiff who has committed breach thereof. Therefore, the Defendants arc not liable to refund the sums received by them. In their Written Statement preliminary objection has also been taken challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It has been submitted that the suit is bad for multi fariousness, inasmuch as there are three distinct Agreements to Sell and three different suits ought to have been filed. It is further disputed that the order prayed for in this application could be passed either under Order XXXIX or under Order XXXVIII Civil Procedure Code. These points were also argued before me. .

( 2 ) AS indicated above three questions arise for determination at this stage, namely (I) whether the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground of multifariousness ; (II) whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and (III) whether the reliefs claimed for in the application ought to be granted.

( 3 ) MENTION has already been made above that although three different Agreements to Sell were undoubtedly executed between the parties, all these Agreements as also the MOU dated 25. 4. 1998 contain a covenant which specifically enjoins their simultaneous performance. Clauses 19 and 23 of the MOU reads as under:

"19. That the sellers have agreed to obtain all the necessary permissions from the concerned departments simultaneously to enable the pu7rchaser to get the sale deed registered at one time from all the four sellers. The transaction shall constitute to be one transaction on behalf of four sellers. " "23. That this MOU shall remain in existence even on execution of regular agreement to sell with individual seller, till the time all the obligations as mentioned herein before are complied with by the Sellers and Buyers. "

( 4 ) ON a reading of these Clauses it is palpably clea