The plaintiff is the appellant. This Second appeal has arisen out of the order passed in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The trial court allowed the application and the Appellate Court confirmed the said order.

2. The subject matter suit viz., O.S.No.122 of 2008 was filed by the appellant herein seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale; for declaration to declare sale deed, dated 24.1.2008 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as illegal, null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. Before this suit, the appellant earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 2008 which was later renumbered as O.S.No.90 of 2010 for permanent injunction restraining the very same defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit for injunction is still pending. However the plaint in the subsequent suit, seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale and for other reliefs as stated supra, came to be rejected at the instance of the defendants on the sole ground that the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.

4. Challenging the concurrent judgment and decree of the both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is filed before this Court and the same was admitted on 15.9.2014 by raising the following substantial question of law.

''Whether the Courts below erred in rejecting the plaint on the basis of disputed questions of fact and law which could only have been decided after letting in evidence at the stage of trial and final disposal ?

5. On admission, notice was ordered to the respondents. Despite service of notice to them, they have chosen not to appear either in person or through their counsel before this Court. The matter is listed today for final hearing, by printing the names of the respondents in the cause list. None appears for them.

6. The learned Senior counsel Mr. Vijaynarayanan appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in law in rejecting the plaint on an erroneous view of facts and circumstances and application of law. He contended that the second suit viz., present suit for specific performance and for other reliefs is not hit by Order II Rule 2 C.P.C., as the cause of action for both the suits is not one and the same as found by the Courts below. Thus he submitted that the very relief sought for in the second suit including the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void, would go to show that the second suit is not filed based on the same set of cause of action as claimed in the earlier suit for bare injunction.

7. The learned Senior counsel in support of his submission relied on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in 2014(6) CTC 333 (RATHNAVATHI & ANOTHER VS. KAVITA GANASHAMDAS) and 2014(6) CTC 445 (INBASEGARAN AND ANOTHER VS. S.NATARAJAN (Dead) thr. L.Rs.).

8. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court.

9. Since the issue involved in this case as raised in the substantial question of law lies in a narrow compass, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the claim made by the appellant in both the suits and give a finding on the same as it is for the trial Court to ultimately consider and decide on merits, if this court in this appeal concludes that the rejection of the plaint is bad. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether the rejection of the plaint of the present suit, which is the one for specific performance and for other reliefs as stated supra, is sustainable in law.

10. It is specific case of the appellant that they entered into an agreement of sale with the first defendant on 24.1.2007 in respect of the suit p