1. This Application has been filed by the 3rd defendant in the above said suit seeking revocation of leave to sue granted in the Application in A.No.2767 of 2014 on 23.04.2014.

2. The suit is one for specific performance of agreements of sale and construction agreements entered into on 18.10.2011.

3. According to the plaintiff, he is carrying on real estate business at Chennai for the past several years. He claims that the first defendant, who is builder and also the owner of the property described in the Schedule 'A' as item 2. He also holds the power of attorney for the 18th defendant, who is the owner of the property described in Schedule 'A' as item 3. The defendants 5 to 17 are represented by their power agent P.B. Krishna Prasad, who happens to be the brother of the second defendant. The plaintiff had booked 20 flats in the project named 'MAJESTICA', developed by the 1st defendant. The defendants as land owners entered, into 20 agreements of sale, agreeing to convey the undivided shares of land and on the same day construction agreements were also entered into between the first defendant as builder and the plaintiff.

4. According to the plaintiff, a period of 18 months was fixed for construction with grace period of 6 months. The plaintiff would claim that, despite having received the entire sale consideration, for the undivided share in the land, the 1st defendant was evading performance of the contract. In view of such non-compliance, the plaintiff is forced to approach this Court, seeking specific performance of all the 20 contracts of sale entered into with the 1st defendant on 18.10.2011 and the construction agreements on even date.

5. In the plaint, the plaintiff would claim that even though, the said properties were situate out side the original jurisdiction of this Court, since the suit is one for specific performance simpliciter or for alternative relief for re-fund of advance. The entire cause of action, according to the plaintiff having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff had filed the suit in this Court after obtaining leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent in A.No.2767 of 2014.

6. Upon service of summons, it appears that the 3rd defendant filed an Application seeking rejection of plaint, in A.No.4418 of 2017. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had at the time of filing the suit, obtained leave to institute the suit in this Court in A.No.2767 of 2014, therefore, the proper remedy of the Applicant was to seek revocation of the leave and not rejection of the plaint. Consequent upon such dismissal, the 3rd defendant has come forward with the present application for revocation of leave.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is averred that the suit being one for specific performance and for injunction restraining the defendants in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit Schedule 'B' mentioned property. The suit is one to gain control over land, therefore, it is in essence a suit on land. If it is a suit on land, then the suit had to be instituted in the Court within whose jurisdiction, the land is situate. It cannot be filed in this Court, particularly, when the land is situate out side the original jurisdiction of this Court.

8. It is further claimed that in the eye of law, a suit for enforcement of contract which includes handing over possession is only a suit for land. Therefore, according to the Applicant, the leave granted in A.No.2767 of 2014 is to be revoked.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein, it is stated that the suit being one for specific performance, which is a relief for enforcement of contract alone, the same cannot be construed as a suit on land. Therefore, the suit as filed is maintainable.

10. Inasmuch as the parties to the suit are resident and persons having office at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is only in view of the fact that the suit property is situate