The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 06.07.2011 made in I.A.No.287 of 2011 in CRF No.1286 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruppur.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the petitioner s construction viz. M/s.Rajkumar Construction Limited, represented by its Managing Director entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent herein on 28.10.2008. The respondent herein is the owner of the suit property agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,75,00,000/- and the petitioner herein paid an advance amount of Rs.2,55,00,000/- to the respondent herein on the date of sale agreement.

3. The further case of the revision petitioner is that he was put in possession of the suit property on the date of sale agreement itself. Since the respondent herein failed to cancel the earlier 7 sale deeds executed by his predecessor-in-title, the revision petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent herein from alienating the suit property and restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner over the suit property.

4. Along with the plaint, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.287 of 2011 under Order 2, Rule 2(3) CPC seeking to grant leave to file a suit for the lesser relief of permanent injunction with liberty to file a suit for the efficacious relief of specific performance at a later stage.

5. In the said application, notice was ordered to the respondent herein and he filed counter affidavit to the Order 2, Rule 2 application. It is contented by the respondent herein that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract within the time stipulated in the sale agreement. But the revision petitioner only is dragging on the matter. It is further contented that the revision petitioner ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of the contract if at all he is affected. The application filed under Order 2 Rule 2 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court after considering the legal issue involved in the above case, was pleased to dismiss the above application by holding that when the plaintiff / revision petitioner is having a clear cause of action for seeking remedy available under the Specific Relief Act, which is a substantial law, the leave sought for by the revision petitioner cannot be granted.

7. I heard Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the entire records.

8. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the order passed by the trial Court. The main question to be decided in this civil revision petition is whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get leave of the trial Court to file a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent herein with a liberty to file a separate suit for specific performance and other reliefs at latter point of time.

9. In this regard this Court has carefully perused the order of the trial Court. The learned District Munsif after elaborate discussion regarding the entitlement of the revision petitioner to obtain leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and ultimately held that there is a clear bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, wherein it is stated that an injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious remedy can be obtained under the substantial law. Therefore the trial Court held that in the present case the revision petitioner has a clear cause of action to file a suit for specific performance of a contract or for the alternative relief of refund of advance amount paid by him. In the considered opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference.

10. At this juncture it is useful to extract Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, hereunder:

“(a) to (g) ......

(h) When equally efficacious relief can c