Judgment M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge in Application No.1857 of 2008 whereby the Appellant/applicant seeking leave to file a Suit was dismissed. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also for the respondent. 3. The plaintiff/appellant has sought the leave or the Court stating that it was a Suit for injunction and not for adjudication of title or delivery of possession. The Suit was filed to restrain the respondent and their men from utilizing, either for commercial purpose or for any other purpose, the Wind Energy Technology and its designs and drawings and from making any claim under the agreement dated 11. 2006. The Suit was also filed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to transfer/hand over the entire title deeds/original documents pertaining to the immovable property as described in Schedule-I to the Plaint along with the R.C. Books pertaining to 75 vehicles belonging to Wind Energy Division of the plaintiff as detailed in Schedule-I. Apart from the above, the plaintiff has also asked for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, encumbering, leasing or disposing of or dealing with the property as described in Schedule-I and 11 belonging the plaintiffs and the Wind Energy Division either directly or indirectly along with the properties, if any secured from any Government in Indian territory on the strength of the agreement dated 11. 2006. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge and equally before this Court that the Suit is basically not for immovable property, part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and the appellant is entitled to seek leave to file the Suit. 5. On the contrary, it was contended by the respondent side before the Trial Court and equally here also that the Suit is one for taking the entire control of the Wind Energy Division is dispute which consists of immovable properties. The Suit itself is framed for making claim in respect of the Wind Energy Division which indirectly make a claim over the immovable property. The Suit itself is framed for making claim in respect of the Wind Energy Division which indirectly make a claim over the immovable property. The plaintiff has virtually sought for the relief to have control over the entire Energy Division and under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Court lacked the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and hence, leave to file a Suit should not be granted. 6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides has taken a view that it is not a fit case for grant of leave as asked for by the appellant/plaintiff and dismissed the same. Hence, this Appeal. 7. The learned counsel on either side reiterated the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge. 8. As could be seen above, the plaintiff/appellant has sought for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from using/utilizing, either for commercial purpose or for any other purpose, the Wind Energy Technology or its designs, drawings, etc. over the Wind Energy Division including the immovable property and movable properties and other permanent injunction, mandatory injunction have been sought for as seen above. 9. From the very reading of the Plaint averment, it would be quite clear that the entire case of the plaintiff and the relief sought for rest upon the agreement entered between the parties on 11. 2006 which according to the plaintiff was unenforceable agreement. The learned counsel for the appellant took the Court to Clause 1 of the agreement which reads as follows. "Wind Energy means business of the NEPC located at 35 & 36, Wallajah Road, Chennai-600 002, pertaining to manufacturing, selling, importing, exporting, supplying and dealing in all kinds of power generation equipments including turbine generators, windmills and turbines, hydro-turbines, thermal turbines, solar modules and panels, substations, including acquisition of land for development of the business of Wind Energy Division and as a part of its incidental business offering operation and maintenance and other allied services in relation to any of the above." 10. Placing reliance on the above, the learned counsel in the appellant would submit that the Wind Energy Division is the business of NEPC and it is actually situated in Madras and hence, the cause of action arises at Madras. He would further add, it is not a Suit for declaration of title to the immovable property, under such circumstances, leave should been granted. 11. He would further add, it is not a Suit for declaration of title to the immovable property, under such circumstances, leave should been granted. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on Clause 25 of the agreement which read as follows: "All disputes and differences whatsoever arising between the parties hereto regarding construction or interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement or any dispute or difference in connection with this agreement shall be referred to arbitration of a Sole Arbitrator, if parties agree upon one, otherwise to three Arbitrators of which one each will be appointed by SWPL and NEPC and the third Arbitrator shall be appointed by the said two Arbitrators. Such arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof. The place of Arbitration shall be Mumbai." 12. Pointing to this clause, the learned counsel would submit, as agreed upon by the parties when the dispute arose, it was the plaintiff/appellant who came for arbitration and actually, this clause has been invoked and Arbitrator has been appointed and the matter is pending before the Arbitral proceedings. Under such circumstances, insofar as Clause (b) of the agreement is concerned it would clearly fall within Arbitral proceedings and insofar as the other clauses are concerned, they are all connected with the immovable property in question and also center around upon the Agreement in question which is actually now pending Arbitral proceedings. Under such circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be sustained. 13. After hearing both sides and looking into the materials available, the Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be sustained for three reasons. Firstly, Clause 25 of the Agreement would read, whenever disputes arise between the parties, the Arbitral clauses have got to be invoked. Admittedly, the plaintiff has invoked the Arbitral proceedings and the matter is pending before the Arbitrator. Now, the contention as could be seen from the averment in the Plaint, the Agreement itself, is unenforceable. Even though the Plaint averment actually based upon that Agreement, it is a case, where the contention now put forth before this Civil Court, could be well raised before the Arbitral proceedings. Now, the contention as could be seen from the averment in the Plaint, the Agreement itself, is unenforceable. Even though the Plaint averment actually based upon that Agreement, it is a case, where the contention now put forth before this Civil Court, could be well raised before the Arbitral proceedings. Secondly, the immovable property is actually found in respect of which permanent injunction is sought for in prayer (a) of the Suit and the same was also brought to the notice of the Court before the learned Single Judge and a requisition was made by the applicant/plaintiff that they are prepared to remove the words "including the immovable property". But the learned Single Judge has pointed out that even by removing the same, it cannot cure the matter since all the reliefs actually center around the immovable property. It is further to be pointed out that NEPC Division falls within the city of Madras and the Court is vested with the territorial jurisdiction and the reliefs asked for are inter-linked and connected with the immovable property. Thirdly, the Arbitral proceedings were initiated and pending. All the questions actually rested upon the interpretation of the Agreement. The connected injunction asked for, are inter-linked and concerned with the immovable property. Thought declaration of title or delivery of possession has not been asked for, the reliefs asked for are inter-linked with each other. In view of the above, the order of the Trial Court has got to be sustained. 14. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.