2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in C.S.No.783 of 2006 seeking specific performance of agreement for sale and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from encumbering or alienating the suit schedule property.

3. The court, having found that the suit is one not for land, but, for specific performance of the agreement for sale and also for permanent injunction not to deal with the suit schedule property, granted leave to the respondent/plaintiff to lay the suit inasmuch as part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court.

4. The applicants/defendants would contend that the suit property is situate outside the jurisdiction of this court. As the suit relief relates to immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of this court, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to lay the suit before this court, it is submitted.

5. The respondent/plaintiff, in his counter, would contend that the suit is basically for enforcement of the terms of the contract and therefore, the same is not a suit for land. Nor was the title to the suit property is sought to be decided by the court. Therefore, the applicants/defendants have come forward with this application under total misconception with respect to the scope and frame of the suit.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants would vehemently submit that delivery of property was not contemplated under the agreement for sale entered into between the respondent and the applicants. When the possession is with the applicants, there is every possibility for the respondent to pray for delivery of possession invoking the provision under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act at any stage of the proceedings. The current prayer in the suit alone will not decide the matter. Therefore, he would submit that the suit is basically one for land and therefore, revocation of leave granted by this court is not warranted.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that inasmuch as there is no relief sought in the suit seeking recovery of possession, the suit simplicitor for specific performance of agreement for sale shall be considered as suit not for land. The future scope made available under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act cannot come in the way of deciding the question whether the respondent is entitled to lay the suit with the leave of the court.

8. It is true that the agreement for sale entered into between the applicants and the respondent does not contemplate delivery of possession by the applicants to the respondent. But, the fact remains that the suit is filed seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement for sale and also for permanent injunction as against the applicants not to deal with the property.

9. The court cannot dictate the plaintiff to seek a particular relief which was left out in the plaint. The party will have to reap the consequence of the failure to seek for the prayer as per law. The entire pleadings and the prayer found in the plaint will have to be considered by the court while granting leave to sue. It is to be taken note of that the respondent/plaintiff has not whispered anything about the prayer for delivery of possession.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants referred to the judgment of this court in M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur Private Limited V. A. Velliangiri And Three Others (1989 II LW 529) pronounced by Srinivasan, J. (as he then was). That was a basically a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale. But, it appears that the fourth defendant therein purchased the very same property subsequent to the agreement entered into between the other defendants and the plaintiff therein. Therefore, the plaintiff in that suit specifically prayed for directing the fourth defendant who was the subsequent purchaser to deliver vacant possession of the subject property to the plaintiff. The learned Single Ju