M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the instant Original Side Appeal as against the order dated 17.11.2014 in A.No.2156 of 2014 in C.S.No.650 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the application and consequently, rejecting the plaint, the Learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 17.11.2014 in A.No.2156 of 2014 in C.S.650 of 2012 at para 16 had inter-alia observed as follows:

“16. ...... when the question of law is such that and there is no cause of action disclosed, the plaint cannot be sustained. No reason is forthcoming as to why the plaintiff has come up with the third suit on the very same cause of action even without disclosing the same. From the above facts, excepting the sale deed dated 29.12.2008, the plaintiff does not get any other right. The plaintiff's father who had been a builder, had already ended up the battle with the defendant which has come to the Court up to the state of First Appeal and reached finality. While so, the plaintiff, who is the son of the builder, knowing very well about the factual position, has come up with the present suit only with an ulterior motive to harass the defendant abusing the process of law. The plaintiff could have either obtained liberty to file a fresh suit while withdrawing the earlier suits or amended the plaint by adding subsequent relief. Without doing so, the plaintiff has chosen to file a third suit on the same cause of action, which attitude of the party cannot be allowed to continue and should be nipped in the bud....”

and resultantly, allowed the application to reject the plaint in C.S.650 of 2012.

2. According to the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the Learned Single Judge had failed to note the contents of the counter affidavit to the A.No.2156 of 2014. Also that, the Learned Single Judge had rejected the C.S.650 of 2012 by means of false allegations made in A.No.2156 of 2014 filed under Order 2 Rule 2 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

3. The Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Learned Single Judge had failed to take into account that the fact cause of action in O.S.6 of 2010 and O.S.20 of 2012 are different. Although the parties and the properties are same, they were filed for permanent injunction.

4. The Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the suit in C.S.650 of 2012 was filed for the recovery of money as damages against the First Defendant and as such, the cause of action in C.S.650 of 2012 is completely different from the earlier suits.

5. The main grievance of the Appellant is that the cause of action in C.S.650 of 2012 was clearly mentioned and in fact, the said suit was filed only after obtaining leave to sue from this Court in A.No.3479 of 2012 on 14.08.2012 because of the reason that the property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

6. On behalf of the Appellant, it is represented before this Court that the Appellant/Plaintiff is permanently residing at Triplicane Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court and the First Defendant had signed the sale agreement of UDS at Appellant/Plaintiff's residence and all transactions had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Court only.

7. The Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff strenuously takes a plea that in para 4 of the plaint in C.S.650 of 2012, it was among other things averred that when the plaintiff went to his own flat for the purpose of conducting house warming ceremony but the defendant had not allowed the plaintiff to enter into his own flat without assigning any reason. In this regard, plaintiff lodged a police complaint but the concerned police officials after due enquiry closed the same since the subject matter is in civil dispute.

8. The Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Applicant/First Defendant has not made out any ground to show that the suit in C.S.No.650 of 2012 has to be rejected under Or.7 R.11