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