1. The defendants in O.S. No.6 of 2008 are the revision petitioners before this Court.

2. O.S. No.6 of 2008 was filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs against the revision petitioners for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants from alienating or encumbering the Suit schedule properties.

3. Along with the Suit, the respondents/plaintiffs filed two Applications, one in I.A. No.9 of 2008 under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to reserve their right to institute a separate Suit for the specific performance of contract on the cause of action and another in I.A. No.10 of 2008 under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. seeking an order of interim injunction.

4. The Trial Court by order dated 09.01.2008 allowed I.A. No.9 of 2008 granting permission to the respondents/plaintiffs to reserve their right to institute a separate Suit for specific performance of contract on the same cause of action and aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the Suit filed the above Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. A.R.L. Sudaresan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents and judgment filed in support of their submissions.

6. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.6 of 2008 against the revision petitioners for a permanent injunction restraining them from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S. No.6 of 2008 is that they entered into an agreement of sale on 02.09.2007 with the revision petitioners/defendants to purchase the Suit schedule properties, for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,11,14,500/- (Rupees Six Crores Eleven Lakhs Fourteen thousand and Five Hundred only). They paid a part of the sale consideration of Rs.2.0 crores to the revision petitioners and the same was acknowledged by them in the sale agreement dated 02.09.2007 itself. As per the sale agreement dated 02.09.2007, the respondents/plaintiffs should pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,11,14,500/-(Rupees Four Crores Eleven Lakhs Fourteen thousand and Five Hundred only) to the revision petitioners/defendants and complete the sale within 312. 2007 i.e., 120 days from the date of agreement of sale.

It was also agreed that the revision petitioners should obtain a consent deed from one Thiru K. Gajendran who filed a Suit in O.S. No.15 of 2007 against his father Thin. Kali Krishnappa alias Kristappa Naidu and his sisters before the Court of District Munsif at Poonamallee for partition in respect of a portion of an extent of 3.73 acres in the suit B properties. It is claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs that they formed a 40 wide and about 1 km long gravel road from the main road to the suit properties to reach the layout to be formed by them by spending a sum of Rs.25 lakhs. When the respondents/plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the revision petitioners/defendants failed to perform their part of the contract, which resulted in exchange of correspondence between the parties.

On 01.01.2008, the respondents/plaintiffs came to know that the revision petitioners are trying to alienate the suit properties to a third party for a higher price and therefore, they have filed O.S. No.6 of 2008 for the aforesaid relief. In the Plaint filed in support of O.S. No.6 of 2008, the respondents/plaintiffs stated that they reserved their right to file a separate Suit for specific performance of contract against the revision petitioners/defendants for which, they have filed a separate Application under Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. seeking permission of the Trial Court in this regard. Accordingly, they filed I.A. No.9 of 2008 under Order 11, Rule 2 seeking permission to reserve their right to institute a separate Suit for specific performance of contract on the same cause of action. That w