S. TAMILVANAN, J.

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 11.01.2013 made in I.A. No. 711 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2013 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit, that was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 from alienating or encumbering the suit property to any third party.

3. The Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 711 of 2013 was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 herein under Order 2 Rule 2 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to file a comprehensive suit for seeking specific performance on later stage on the same cause of action. The first respondent, as plaintiff, has stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai on 07.04.1944 when the first defendant's forefather purchased the property, vide Doc. No. 1241/44 and the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff was entered into at Chennai, after receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs. 40,00,000/- in Chennai at the office of the plaintiff and when signed the agreement by the plaintiff and defendant. In the cause of action paragraph, the first respondent/plaintiff has not stated the date of the agreement for sale. However, in the list of document filed under Order 7 Rule 14(1) & 2 CPC, the first respondent/plaintiff has stated Document No. 1, agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, dated 08.10.2012 and also Memorandum of Understanding, dated 02.08.2012. The xerox copy of the memorandum of understanding filed in the typed set of papers would show that it is only an unregistered agreement between the plaintiff and the other party.

4. As per the impugned order, dated 11.01.2013, the Court below has allowed the petition, whereby granted leave to the first respondent/plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit for specific performance on a later stage, aggrieved by which, this Revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant.

5. Mr. K. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Court below is against law, whereby the Court below granted leave for the first respondent/plaintiff, to file a separate suit for the main relief of specific performance of contract. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent/plaintiff could have filed a proper suit for specific performance and paid Court fee for the value of the agreement stated therein and also drew the attention of this Court to the unregistered Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which reads in paragraph number 3 as follows:-

"The party of the second part agree to purchase the property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,40,00,000/- (Rupees four crores forty lakhs only) and the party of the first part agreed for the same."

It is seen that the proposed vendor, as per the MOU has been stated as party of the first part and the proposed purchaser, D. Damodharan first respondent herein is stated as party of the second part.

6. As per the prayer, in the Interlocutory Application, the first respondent / plaintiff has sought leave to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement. As stated in the MOU, the sale consideration, as per the agreement is Rs. 4,40,00,000/-. Without filing a suit, seeking specific performance of agreement, by making payment of proper court fee for the said value of the agreement, the first respondent/plaintiff had simply filed a suit, seeking bare permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/first defendant and defendants 2 and 3 from alienating or encumbering the property, for which he valued the property only at Rs.