A.P. Shah, CJ.

The plaintiff in C.S.No.630 of 2005 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2005 made by the learned single Judge in Application, No.32 10 of 2005. 2. Application No. 210 of 2005 was filed by the defendant to revoke the leave already granted on 20.7.2005 in Application No.2916 of 2005 to the plaintiff to institute the suit. The learned single Judge, by order dated 25-8.2005, allowed the Application No.3210 of 2005 and revoked the leave granted by order dated 20.7.2005 made in Application No.2916 of 2005.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants or anyone claiming through or under them froth in any manner entering into the schedule “A" property and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and for a mandatory Injunction directing the defendant, its men, agents, i servants, or anyone to restrict their activities to that of Schedule 'B' property and for costs of the suit. The suit has been filed on the following averments:

A Company by name M/s. Citrex Products Limited owned an extent of 30.8 acres of land in Thaatchur and Peravallur villages of Ponneri Taluk. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the company on 25.8.1995 for purchase of 25.8 acres of land out of 30.8 acres of land together with available superstructure for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000 and a sum of Rs.1,000 was paid as advance on that date. As the company was unable to clear the debts, it requested the plaintiff for payment of further advance. Accordingly, a fresh agreement was entered on 2.6.1997, in pursuance of which the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.28,99,000 from and out of the total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000. On such payment, the company handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff. The defendant, by an agreement dated 12.3.18997 entered into with the Company agreed to purchase the remaining 5 acres of land out of 30.8 acres of land owned by the Company. On the strength of the said agreement, the defendant though was entitled to possession of the said 5 acres of land only attempted to interfere with the remaining extent of land. Hence the suit.

4. As the property is situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff filed judgment and decree of permanent Application No.2916 of 2005 for grant of leave on the ground that the agreement was entered into by the defendant only at Chennai. By an order dated 20.7.2005 the learned single Judge granted leave based on the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that a Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment in Bank of Madura Limited v. Balaramdas and Brothers, A.I.R 1985 Mad.1, had held under similar circumstances that the leave could be granted. The defendant had taken out Application No.3210 of 2005 to revoke the said leave and by the impugned order, the application has been allowed.

5. At the outset, it is required to be stated that the suit has not been filed by the Company which has entered into an agreement with the defendant for sale of the land. The suit has been filed on the basis that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 25.8.1995 with the Company for purchase of an extent of 25.8 acres of land out of the total extent of 30.8 acres owned by the Company and the defendant had entered into an agreement on 12.3.1997 for purchase of the remaining extent of 5 acres of land and on the strength of the said agreement, the defendant is attempting to interfere with the possession of the land held by the plaintiff.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff fairly conceded that the agreement that was entered into between the defendant and the Company cannot be a cause for the plaintiff to maintain the suit at Chennai, as admittedly, that agre