JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.04.2014, made in O.S.No.16 of 2013, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Virudhunagar.)

1. The Appeal Suit is directed against the orders passed in I.A.No.73 of 2013 in O.S.No.16 of 2013 and the consequent judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16 of 2013, dated 15.04.2014, on the file of the Additional District Court, Virudhunagar, rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2013 against the respondents/defendants claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2009. The defendants have filed their written statement. Pending suit, the defendants have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., for rejection of the plaint in I.A.No.73 of 2013. The plaintiff has filed the counter affidavit denying the averments raised in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.73 of 2013 and raising objections. The learned Additional District Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2014, allowing the petition and thereby rejecting the plaint. Aggrieved by the rejection of the suit, the plaintiff has come forward with the present Appeal Suit.

3. Considering the grounds raised by the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal memorandum, the point that arise for consideration is as to whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint, despite showing that the property shown in the sale agreement and the properties listed out in the plaint are one and the same or different, is a matter for trial.

4. Admittedly, the first defendant is the mother of the defendants 2 to 5 and the sixth defendant is the sister of the first defendant's husband. It is not in dispute that the defendants 1 to 5 have entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the property shown in the sale agreement and that both the parties have fixed the sale price at Rs.1,00,000/- for one Kuzhi (144sqft) and the time for performance as four months. It is also not in dispute that the defendants 1 to 5 have received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of agreement itself towards advance and that subsequently, the plaintiff has paid Rs.5,00,000/- through two cheques, one drawn in favour of the first defendant for Rs.2,50,000/- and the other one drawn in favour of the sixth defendant for Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff, by alleging that though he has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendants have been postponing the sale on some pretext or other and that since the defendants have specifically changed the property itself, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance.

5. The defendants have raised the following grounds for rejection of the plaint:

(i) The plaintiff, in his plaint, by listing out five properties, has claimed the relief of specific performance in respect of the said five properties, but the said properties do not find place in the suit sale agreement dated 30.12.2009.

(ii) The plaintiff has violated the terms of the sale agreement and he has not complied with the duties shown in the agreement.

(iii) Since the period for performance was fixed as four months, the suit has become time barred.

(iv) Instead of taking the appropriate civil suit, the plaintiff has initiated criminal proceedings for threatening the defendants and to comply with his lawful demands and hence, he has no cause of action.

6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the learned trial Judge himself has given a finding against the defendants with respect to the limitation plea. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, the points 2 and 4 are matter for trial and by no stretch of imagination, the same can be considered as grounds for rejection of plaint.

7. Now turning to the contention of the de