This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of an interlocutory application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. dated 04.08.2006 made in I.A.No.39 of 2006 in O.S. No.126 of 2005 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit. Admittedly, the petitioners and the respondent have entered into a sale agreement dated 09.02.1996, by which the petitioners have agreed to sell one acre 23 cents of their land to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- per cent and received a sum of Rs.4,92,000/-from the respondent as advance on the date of the agreement itself.

3. Subsequently, the respondent has issued a legal notice dated 26.03.2004 to the petitioners calling upon them to perform their part of the contract. For the said notice, the petitioners have issued a reply notice dated 24.04.2004, stating that they are ready to execute sale deed only in respect of 41 cents which is equivalent to Rs.4,92,000/-in terms of market value. They have further stated that the rest of the area of the land covered in the sale agreement had been sold away by them in favour of third parties as respondent did not come forward to pay the balance of sale consideration in time.

4. After the receipt of the said reply notice, the respondent did protest the sale made. However, he filed O.S.No.321 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Karur in respect of the above 41 cents alone for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from alienating the same to third parties. The events constituting cause of action for filing the said suit have been enumerated in paragraph 10 of the plaint as follows:

"It is submitted that the defendants have arranged to execute a sale deed in favour of Venkatesh and Kathirvel and the registration was fixed on 13.04.2005. Immediately after the knowledge the plaintiff and his men intervened and thwarted the unlawful attempt of the defendants with great difficulties. Even then the defendants and his men openly divulge that they will convey or transfer the suit property in favour of the third parties. The defendants have vast followers to achieve their unlawful object by any means. Hence this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men not to alienate the suit property to third parties."

A close reading of the said averments in paragraph 10 of the plaint would show that there were attempts made by the petitioners to sell the suit property viz. 41 cents to third parties in gross violation of the agreement for sale.

5. In the said suit the petitioners have filed a written statement specifically denying to execute sale deed in favour of the respondent. The petitioners have averred that originally they were ready and willing to execute necessary sale deed in respect of 41 cents to the respondent as expressed in their reply notice. But, the respondent did not come forward to get the sale deed executed in his favour. Instead, there was a panchayat held between the parties to mediate the dispute, in which, it is alleged, the respondent agreed to receive back the advance amount of Rs.4,92,000/- and gave up his right to have sale deed executed in his favour.

6. Thereafter, the respondent has chosen to file a fresh suit in O.S.No.126 of 2005 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur for specific performance of contract in respect of 41 cents and in the alternative for the refund of Rs.4,92,000/-with interest. After filing this suit, the respondent has withdrawn the earlier suit in O.S.No.321 of 2005.

7. In the suit in O.S.No.126 of 2005, the petitioners have filed a written statement contending inter alia that this suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. in view of the withdrawal of the earlier suit in O.S.No.321 of 2005. Seeking to reject the plaint on the above ground, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.39 of 2006 before the learned Subor