Duplicacy of suits must be avoided.

Pending the suit for specific performance, the defendant has taken out this application for rejection of the plaint.

2. The affidavit in support of the application and the counter affidavit are perused. The Court heard the learned senior counsels on either side.

3. Before going into the question whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on the grounds urged by the applicant/defendant, it would be fit and proper to narrate the circumstances which led the plaintiff to file the instant suit for specific performance, as follows:

The defendant in the suit, is the owner of 21.71 acres of land with garden, thope, factory and sheds situated at Velachery Road, Madras. In the year 1995, both the parties entered into an agreement, an oral one. As per the agreement, the plaintiff should become entitled to 68% of the land for a consideration of the value of the construction to be put up in the remaining 32% of the land retained by the defendant. Though it was agreed orally and a draft agreement was prepared, the written agreement could not be entered into between the parties, since it fell within the mischief of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. It was also agreed and accepted between the parties that it can be reduced into writing, after it comes out of the clutches said enactment. All along the period, the plaintiff was taking all attempts to property coming out of the mischief of Act, and there were communications dressed to the Government. Finally, a Government Order was passed. Pursuant to the Government Order, the property in question was actually outside the mischief of the Act, but not done so, which necessitated the plaintiff for filing a writ petition before this Court. By an order of this Court, the property was exempted. In February, 1999, the earlier agreement entered into in 1995, was confirmed again by communications, and the plaintiff was permitted to enter into the property to raise two sheds, wherein all the materials were stored. While the matter stood thus, the defendant unlawfully interfered with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of two sheds and made attempts to move the same, which necessitated the plaintiff to approach the police with a complaint Pending the enquiry on the complaint, the defendant also gave a police complaint on 20.5.2003. While so, the plaintiff was constrained to file a civil suit before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.2748 of 2003 for a declaration that the two sheds which were raised by the plaintiff in the property in question belonged to the plaintiff and for a consequential permanent injunction not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the two sheds. On a memo filed before this Court, and on the agreement between the parties, the said suit was withdrawn and transferred to this Court. It is now pending in this Court as Tr.C.S.No.596 of 2003. The plaintiff was constrained to file the instant suit for specific performance before this Court, since there was a denial of the very agreement itself and also the right of the plaintiff under the agreement end into between the parties in 1995 and subsequently confirmed in 1999. When a reply notice was given by the defendant on 22.5.2003 denying the same, the plaintiff constrained to file the instant suit. Thus, the suit is before this Court. After the filing of the suit, the defendant, who entered appearance, has brought forth this application for rejection of the plaint.

4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the applicant/defendant, the learned senior counsel would submit that before the institution of present suit before this Court, there was earlier suit filed in O.S.No.2748 of 2003 and subsequently transferred to this Court; that the plaintiff has relied upon the very same oral agreement for the purpose of cause of action An the present suit; that even a reading of the cause of action in both the suits would clearly reveal that the cause of action stated in the present suit, is ex