1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 26.07.2011, made in I.A. No. 230 of 2011 in O.S. No. 121 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

2. Petitioner is the second defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and second respondent is the first defendant in O.S. No. 121 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The first respondent filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 01.11.2006, which was entered into between the first respondent and second respondent, for sale of the suit property. The petitioner filed written statement and is contesting the suit. The second respondent remained ex-parte. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 230 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the plaint on the ground that earlier, the first respondent had filed O.S. No. 3 of 2008 for declaration of sale deed dated 05.09.2007, executed by the second respondent, in favour of the petitioner as null and void and for a permanent injunction, in respect of the very same property. The cause of action for the present suit and earlier suit are one and the same. The relief of specific performance of agreement of sale was available, when the first respondent filed O.S. No. 3 of 2008 for declaration that the sale deed as null and void and for permanent injunction. He neither sought for the relief of specific performance in the suit in O.S. No. 3 of 2008 nor did he seek permission to file suit for specific performance subsequently. In view of the same, the present suit is barred by law and is liable to be rejected.

3. The first respondent filed counter affidavit and submitted that the cause of action for both the suits are entirely different. The earlier suit for declaration that sale deed in favour of the petitioner is null and void and for consequential injunction. The present suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale. At that time, when the first respondent had filed the earlier suit, the Government had imposed a ban on registration of property in favour of non-power sector companies, in G.O.Ms. 1986, dated 25.08.1986. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in W.P. No. 11453 of 2007, challenging the said G.O. This Court, by the order dated 05.03.2008, set aside the ban and directed the Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore to register all the documents in respect of the lands in Thiyagavalli and Kudikadu villages. The first respondent also filed two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 1783 and 6245 of 2008. Only when the order dated 05.03.2008, passed by this Court, quashing the G.O.Ms. 1986 dated 25.08.1986, the cause of action to file the suit for specific performance arose. The petitioner also filed O.S. No. 137 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, against the first respondent, for declaration of title to the suit property and for restraining the first respondent from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The District Court has ordered for joint trial and all the three suits are ripe for trial. Only to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has come out with the present application.

4. The learned Judge, considering the affidavit, counter affidavit, averments in the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint and judgments relied on by the parties, dismissed the application, holding that the cause of action for both the suits are different.

5. Against the order of dismissal dated 26.07.2011, made in I.A. No. 230 of 2010 in O.S. No. 121 of 2008, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that cause of action for both the suits are identical and to the first respondent, the relief of specific performance was available at the time of filing of the earlier suit. Failure on the part of the first respondent to obtain permission to file the suit for specific performance subsequentl