ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.

2.The revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondent who is the plaintiff, has filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2020, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein and his men from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is owned by her, that originally the land in S.Nos.283/1A part, 284/2 part, 287/2B and 288/2 part were owned by M/s.Mumbai Indian Warehousing Industries Limited and layout was formed as V.P.Garden, that the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the Plot No.89 and entered into a sale agreement on 10.08.2008 with the Director of said concern the defendant herein, that they have fixed the sale price at Rs.5,17,900/- and the plaintiff had paid Rs.75,000/- as advance, that the defendant has agreed to receive the balance sale price and execute sale deed, after settling the bank loan obtained with respect to the said properties, that subsequently the defendant had handed over the possession of the plot purchased by the plaintiff on 27.11.2008, that the plaintiff constructed a house and also fenced the property, that the defendant has received the balance sale price in several instalments, that subsequently, the defendant had absconded himself and the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur was of no use, that on enquiry, the authorities of Mumbai Warehousing Industries Limited informed that the defendant was sent out of their company, that the defendant, after remaining absconding for 10 years, has come out with an intention to extract money and is attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that therefore, the plaintiff was forced to file the above suit for permanent injunction.

4.The defence of the revision petitioner is that the plaintiff has forged the sale agreement dated 10.08.2008, that the sale agreement is not at all executable, as no suit for specific performance was filed, that the above suit for permanent injunction without filing the suit for specific performance is not maintainable, that the suit is barred by limitation, that assuming that the sale agreement is true, the relief of specific performance ought to have who have been claimed 3 years from the date fixed for completion of contract, that the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of sale, that the plaintiff admittedly had no title and therefore, the possession of the plaintiff as alleged by her is unlawful, that the suit for injunction will not lie against the true owner, that the very filing of the above suit would amount to abuse of process of law and that therefore, the plaint is liable to be struck off. Though the plaintiff has alleged that she became the owner of the property, it is not her case that she had taken a sale deed, executed by the Mumbai Indian Warehousing Industries Limited or by the defendant.

5.It is also not the case of the plaintiff that she has already filed the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 10.08.2008 and is pending. Though the plaintiff has alleged that since the defendant was sent out of the Mumbai Indian Warehousing Industries Limited, he has no connection whatever with the suit property, admittedly, the plaintiff has not taken any action against the said company. The plaintiff has not averred any reason or explanation for not impleading the said company in the present suit, whereunder it was alleged that the defendant had executed the sale agreement as representative for the said company.

6.The plaintiff herself has admitted that she had sent legal notice thrice on 20.04.2010, 17.02.2011 and 14.12.2019 to the defendant and not to the company. As rightly pointed out by the learne