N. Sathish Kumar, J.

1. This application has been filed to revoke the leave granted by this Court to institute the suit in Application No. 1700 of 2013.

2. The brief averments of the petition is as follows:

The applicant is the second defendant. It is the contention of the applicant that the first defendant while purchasing the property by the funds provided by the Bollineni Developers Limited, instead of purchasing the property in the name of the first defendant group of companies as per the M.O.U. Dated 31.07.97, purchased in his name. In this regard, arbitration proceedings were instituted in respect of the M.O.U. dated 31.3.97 and the award was passed in favour of the second defendant. Even before initiating arbitration proceedings, the second defendant initiated proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for protection and preservation of the subject matter of the M.O.U. and secured an order of interim direction in respect of the property purchased by the first defendant from and out of the funds provided by the second defendant. The plaintiff is aware of the dispute between the first and second defendants and he filed the suit for enforcement of the contract in respect of the property said to have been executed by the first defendant.

3. The suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The agreement dated 30.06.2008 between the fourth respondent and the plaintiffs show that the vacant possession shall be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed. Now, the suit has been filed on the basis that the possession of the property has already been handed over on the basis of the subsequent payment made by the plaintiff herein. According to the applicant, the endorsement dated 04.08.2008 and 26.08.2008 were prepared on the same day and the payment admittedly stated to have been made before the agreement for sale have been manipulated and fabricated after commencing of the arbitration proceedings for the purpose of this case. Thus, the plaintiff has been put in possession of the property pursuant to a valid contract as alleged by the plaintiff. Even if the person seems to be in possession as per Act 48 of 2001, such agreement is required to be registered, in the absence of possession has not been delivered pursuant to the agreement for sale dated 30.06.2008 perse false. It is the further contention of the applicant that the suit itself ought to have been filed on 29.06.2011. Hence, the suit itself is barred by limitation. The agreement of the sale is subject to the rights of the second defendant. The plaintiff who is seeking the relief of specific performance of the contract, in effect seeking control over the immovable property which is admittedly located outside the jurisdiction. Hence, it is the contention of the applicant that since the suit property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and falls within the jurisdiction of Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District, this suit is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the leave granted by this Court in A. No. 1700 of 2013 dated 09.04.2013 has to be revoked.

4. The brief contentions of the counter filed by the first respondent is as follows:

The first plaintiff, who is the first respondent in the application filed the counter denying the allegation of the applicant. It is the contention of the respondent that the application is a sheer abuse of process of court. In fact, no relief whatsoever has been sought against the applicant herein. Therefore, the applicant has no locus standi to question about the maintainability of the suit. It is the further contention of the respondent that the second defendant was made a party, even though no relief has been sought against him, only for proper adjudication of the suit. The applicant and fourth defendant are colluding with each other and trying to play fraud on the respondent as well as against the other respondents. It is the contention of the respondent that t