M. Sundar, J.

I propose to dispose of all the eight applications by this common order.

2. There are two suits. The sole plaintiff in both the suits is one and the same and it is a private limited company. The sole defendant in each of the suits is different and they are also private limited companies. Both the suits pertain to two separate agreements of sale, both dated 27.07.2005, under which each of the defendant companies agreed to sell to the plaintiff company adjacent properties. Plaintiff company in both the suits is the applicant in six applications. Each of the defendant companies is applicant in two of the above said applications, they being reject the plaint applications in the respective suits. Though the defendant company in the two suits are different, as the facts are identical and as I propose to dispose of all these applications by a common order, the term ‘defendant companies-is used in this order to collectively denote the two companies which have been arrayed as sole defendant in the two suits. With regard to other aspects, the parties in these applications are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit, for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.

3. Plaintiff company instituted two suits in C.S.Nos. 831 & 833 of 2005 in this Court inter alia seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant companies from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the respective schedule mentioned properties in favour of any third party other than the plaintiff. The two suits were launched on the basis of the above said two agreements of sale between the plaintiff company and the defendant companies. As stated supra, both agreements of sale are dated 27.07.2005. In C.S.No. 831 of 2005 the subject-matter of the agreement of sale (which is also the plaint schedule property) is land and superstructure in Plot No.66 (Old No.42), Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058, admeasuring 1.24 grounds or thereabouts. The subject-matter of the other agreement of sale (plaint schedule property in C.S.No.833 of 2005) is land and superstructure in Plot No.65 (Old No.43) Second Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 600 058 admeasuring 16.40 grounds or thereabouts. It is stated at the Bar that the two properties are adjacent properties and the lands are contiguous parcels of land. There are superstructures on each parcel of land. This is evident from the address/description of the two properties in the agreements of sale and in the schedules to the plaints.

4. In each of the aforesaid suits, the plaintiff company had stated that under the respective agreements of sale, different amounts were tendered to the respective defendant companies, but under the pretext of some charge over the said properties resulting in alienation being restrained, the defendant companies did not perform its part of the obligations under the agreements of sale. It is further stated that the defendant companies vide a letter dated 01.08.2005 had communicated to the plaintiff company that there is a charge over the properties resulting in alienation being restrained owing to some proceedings against the defendant companies by the Central Excise Department on account of revenue dues.

5. Interestingly and intriguingly, while the two agreements of sale are dated 27.07.2005, this communication from the defendant companies are dated 01.08.2005 barely four days later. In the letter dated 01.08.2005, the defendant companies state that they were informed by the Central Excise Department that the Department is going to issue a notice stating that defendant companies should not alienate the said properties. The defendant companies had also gone on to state that the dues to the Central Excise Department is to the tune of Rs.2.16 crores but they have obtained stay before Appellate Authority. It is further stated that they were so informed about the action by the Central Excise Department all of a sudden, but no spe