JUDGMENT :

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

Prayer:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.2015 made in IA.No.198/2014 in OS.No.304/2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem.

1. The sole plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.304/2013 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, is the appellant in the above appeal and the present Appeal Suit is preferred against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.04.2015 made in IA.No.198/2014 in OS.No.304/2013, an interlocutory application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in OS.No.304/2013.

2. Pending appeal, the sole appellant died and appellants 2 to 4 are brought on records as legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant.

3. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal Suit are as follows.

4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff by name C.Mani who was the plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.304/2013. The plaintiff entered into an Agreement of sale with the respondents for sale of his properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.75 lakhs by a Sale Agreement dated 02.02.2012. In the meanwhile, it appears that a suit in OS.No.110/2012 was filed by some third parties for injunction against some of the respondents herein and others. Following the same, the deceased appellant herein namely C.Mani, also filed a suit in OS.No.317/2012 for bare injunction against the respondents herein and others restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. There were also exchange of notices between the appellant and respondents even before the suit for injunction was filed and it is brought to the notice of this Court that a police complaint was also given by the plaintiff/deceased appellant before moving the suit for injunction.

5. Later, the plaintiff Mr.C.Mani filed OS.No.304/2013 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, against defendants for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 02.02.2012 and for consequential injunction. There is an alternative prayer seeking refund of a sum of Rs.25 lakhs received as advance on 02.02.2012 with interest @ 24% per annum besides a sum of Rs.1 lakh as damages.

6. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendants filed IA.No.198/2014 in OS.No.304/2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint in OS.No.304/2013 only on the ground that the subsequent suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The said interlocutory application was allowed by the Trial Court and the plaint was rejected holding that the plaintiff/appellant had the cause of action to file a suit for specific performance even when he filed the suit for injunction. Following the said order, the plaint was rejected. Therefore, the appeal is directed against the fair and decreetal order in IA.No.198/2014 in OS.No.304/2013 rejecting plaint.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the cause of action in the previous suit is entirely different and the Trial Court did not consider several facts. He referred to the fact that the suit for injunction was filed not only against the defendants in the present suit but also against strangers who had filed earlier, a suit for injunction against defendants. Learned counsel then submitted that there is an alternative prayer for refund of advance amount as well for damages for breach of contract. Therefore, the plaint as a whole, cannot be rejected on the ground that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC in view of the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs in the subsequent suit for refund of advance amount and for damages alleging breach of contract. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that there is no identity of parties. He also referred to the fact that the suit Agreement itself was not considered by the Trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contentions, relied upo