ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the Order and Decree dated 17/4/2018 made in A.No.8015 of 2017 in C.S.No.629 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, on the file of this Court.)

1. The issue whether the suit is a suit for land or not continues to keep resurfacing, despite several judicial pronouncements made by the Hon-ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts. We need to plug the loopholes to prevent in future such suits being filed before the wrong Court by clever drafting of the plaint and camouflaging the actual reliefs.

2. The instant intra Court appeal has been filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S Rules, r/w. Clause 15 of Letters Patent, challenging the order dated 17.04.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No.8015 of 2017 in C.S.No.629 of 2017.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows:

3.1. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit in C.S.No.629 of 2017, filed by the respondents 1 to 4. The fifth respondent is the second defendant in the suit and is the bank to whom monies are payable for the loan availed by the appellant. The respondents 1 to 4 filed the suit in C.S.No.629 of 2017, against the appellant, seeking the following reliefs:

A. Direct the appellant to forthwith specifically perform the terms and conditions of the MoU dated 09.12.2013, signed on 07.04.2015, by executing a sale deed and / or such other documents necessary to completely transfer the entire business, of M/s.American Organic Food Products Inc. in favour of the plaintiff.

B. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents or any other persons claiming through or under them from in any manner acting contrary to the terms and conditions of the MoU dated 09.12.2013, signed on 07.04.2018;

C. Alternatively and without prejudice, in the event of this Hon’ble Court coming to a conclusion that the relief of Specific Performance of the MoU dated 09.12.2013, signed on 07.04.2015 cannot be granted, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the appellant to refund an amount of Rs.1,67,72,952.59/-.

D. Alternatively and without prejudice, in the event of this Hon’ble Court coming to a conclusion that the relief of Specific Performance of the MoU dated 09.12.2013, signed on 07.04.2015 cannot be granted, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.

E. Directing the appellant to pay the costs of the suit; and

F. To pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No.2676 of 2017, filed by the respondents 1 to 4, granted leave to institute the suit. Thereafter, the appellant filed Application No.8015 of 2017, in C.S.No.629 of 2017, seeking to revoke the leave granted in Application No.2676 of 2017, since according to the appellants, the memorandum of understanding was not signed by the appellant at Chennai and the subject property is situated at No.6/121, Agraharam, Mutharasanallur, Tiruchirappalli –620 101, lying within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Tiruchirappalli and not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. According to the appellant, if at all any cause of action arises out of the averments contained in the plaint, then it is only the civil Court at Tiruchirappalli, which will have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents 1 to 4, reiterating that the suit filed is a suit for specific performance simpliciter and the same cannot be termed as a suit for land. According to them, the relief sought for in the present suit is limited to seeking enforcement of the aforesaid memorandum of understanding which was executed within the jurisdiction of this Court.