Judgment R.Subbiah, J. 1. Application No.5529 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, praying to vacate the interim order of injunction dated 20.06.2014 passed in O.A.No.469 of 2014 in C.S.No.376 of 2014. 2. Application No.5717 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of C.PC. 1908, praying to reject the plaint in C.S.No.376 of 2014. 2. The applicants herein are the defendants 2 & 3, the 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st defendant in the suit respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs_ (1) to direct the defendants to specifically perform the two agreements for Sale dated 22.11.2010 for undivided share in land and two construction agreements dated 15.04.2011 for construction of flat, relating to the suit schedule B properties by executing and registering Sale Deeds conveying the portions of undivided shares mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint in favour of the plaintiff and construct the three flats mentioned in schedule B to the plaint; (2) to direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.1,18,84,950/- being return of total amount of Rs.77,17,500/- and Rs.41,67,450/- being compensation at 18% per annum till the date of the plaint and compensation on Rs.77,17,500/- at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till payment or realization; (3) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any person/s claiming through or under them from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit schedule B properties; (4) to direct the defendants to pay cost of the suit. 4. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows_ 4-1. The plaintiff is carrying on business in real-estate in Chennai for the last several years. The 1st defendant is a builder, who developed the schedule A property along with its owners viz., defendants 2 & 3. The 1st defendant booked two flats for the plaintiff in its project named 'CERUNTI' in respect of the plaint schedule A property. The plaintiff is carrying on business in real-estate in Chennai for the last several years. The 1st defendant is a builder, who developed the schedule A property along with its owners viz., defendants 2 & 3. The 1st defendant booked two flats for the plaintiff in its project named 'CERUNTI' in respect of the plaint schedule A property. The 1st defendant as the builder made arrangement with the defendants 2 & 3, for entering into two agreement for sale between them and the plaintiff at Chennai dated 22.11.2010 for undivided share in the land proportionate and relevant for those flats, which have been registered in the sub-registration office at Neelangarai. The plaintiff paid different amounts on various dates, under the said agreements as advance. The time stipulated in the said agreements is three months. 4-2. The plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration payable under the said sale agreements for undivided share for which the defendants gave letter 24.11.2010 stating that the entire sale consideration as per the said sale agreements has been received, separately for the said two transactions. 4-3. The 1st defendant as a builder entered into two construction agreements dated 15.04.2011 for the said two flats and received the entire cost of construction as per the said agreements. The time stipulated in the said agreements is upto June 2011 with grace period of three months. In clause 18 of the said agreements, it has been specifically stated that the construction agreement and the sale agreement for undivided share in the land are interdependent; hence, both the agreements have to be considered as forming part of a single transaction. 4-4.The details of the flats and the proportionate undivided share in the schedule A property, covered by the aforesaid agreements and subject matter of the suit are given below, which are more particularly described in the schedule B to the plaint_ S.No Described in schedule 'B' as UDS sale agreement UDS amount Cost of construction Total amount paid Doc.No. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1. Item 1 6233/2010 12,66,840 14,20,660 26,87,500 2. Item 2 6235/2010 23,65,380 26,64,620 50,30,000 Total 36,32,200 40,85,280 77,17,500 Despite having paid the entire sale consideration and cost of construction to the defendants and inspite of expiry of the stipulated period, the defendants failed and neglected to register sale deeds for undivided share in land in favour of the plaintiff and handover vacant possession of the flats. Item 2 6235/2010 23,65,380 26,64,620 50,30,000 Total 36,32,200 40,85,280 77,17,500 Despite having paid the entire sale consideration and cost of construction to the defendants and inspite of expiry of the stipulated period, the defendants failed and neglected to register sale deeds for undivided share in land in favour of the plaintiff and handover vacant possession of the flats. Whenever, the plaintiff approached and requested the defendants to register the sale deeds and handover the vacant possession of the flats, the defendants tried to evade the plaintiff. While so, on 07.04.2014, the defendants called the plaintiffs to their house at R.A.Puram in the evening for a discussion and threatened, assaulted and blackmailed the plaintiff through anti-social elements to handover all the original agreements and receipts and cancel all the agreements against some sort of settlement by accepting amount whatever they give, as otherwise, the plaintiff would face dire consequences. Hence, the plaintiff has given a complaint with the Police. Since the plaintiff has already paid the entire sale consideration for undivided share and cost of construction as per the agreements, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs as stated supra. 5. Pending the suit, the plaintiff had taken out an application in A.No.469 of 2014 for interim injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or any person claiming through or under them, from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit schedule B property. When the said application came up for hearing on 20.06.2014, this Court has granted an order of interim injunction for a period of two weeks. 6. On appearance, the defendants 2 & 3 have filed two applications through the power agent; one in Application No.5529 of 2014 seeking to vacate the interim injunction order dated 20.06.2014 and another application in A.No.5717 of 2014 seeking to reject the plaint. The sum and substances of the averments made in the said applications are as follows_ 6-1. The defendants 2 & 3 are the absolute owners of the property bearing Plot No.8, 9, 10, 11 of Injambakkam Village, Vettuvankeni First Avenue, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, with a total land area of 23,993 sq.ft (9.91 grounds). The 1st defendant-company entered into a joint development agreement dated 30.09.2009 with the defendants 2 & 3 for development of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant-company entered into a joint development agreement dated 30.09.2009 with the defendants 2 & 3 for development of the suit schedule property. Amongst the other terms of the joint development agreement, Clause 1 of the said agreement it was agreed between the parties as follows_ “In consideration of the DEVELOPER developing the scheduled mentioned properties into residential flats at its cost and paying OWNER 50% of the sale value that may accrue from the sale of such proposed development, the OWNER agrees to convey to the DEVELOPER and/or its nominees the land more fully described in the schedule herein under either wholly or in parts or in the form of undivided share of land. In other words, the DEVELOPER shall build residential flats in the scheduled mentioned property and sell the same to various purchasers. Out of the sale proceeds so collected by the DEVELOPER, the OWNER is entitled to 50% of the sale proceeds. In consideration of the developer developing the property and paying 50% of the sale value, the owner hereby agrees to convey to the DEVELOPER and/or its nominees the schedule mentioned Land.” Thereafter, a supplementary Joint Development Agreement was entered between the first defendant and the defendants 2 & 3, through power of attorney agent Mr.B.Balan. Despite the time, as mentioned in clause 24 of the Joint Development Agreement being elapsed, the defendants 2 & 3 approached the 1st defendant for redressal. The 1st defendant had sought further time to complete the agreed upon undertaking as per the Joint Development Agreement. The 1st defendant had expressed that due to lack of funds the said project could not be completed and in order to complete the project the 1st defendant represented that it was seeking financial assistance and sought the co-operation of the defendants 2 & 3. 6-2. At that juncture, the plaintiff and his representative one Mr.L.Abhishek Kankaria were introduced as financiers. It was represented that for raising funds sale agreements were liable to be registered. It was further represented that as and when the 1st defendant realized money, the plaintiff and the said L.Abhisek Kankaria would come forward to cancel the sale agreements to the extent of the money received from the 1st defendant. It was represented that for raising funds sale agreements were liable to be registered. It was further represented that as and when the 1st defendant realized money, the plaintiff and the said L.Abhisek Kankaria would come forward to cancel the sale agreements to the extent of the money received from the 1st defendant. It was further represented that only a delegated Power of Attorney is going to be admittedly executed which is not valid under law and as a short term financier the defendants 2 & 3 would not be put to any risk or loss. Only upon such representations and warranties, the power agent had executed the sale agreements dated 22.11.2010 and the receipts dated 24.11.2010. It is represented that the sale agreements dated 22.11.2010 for Flat No.3SA, Flat No.3FC, Flat No.2SC and Flat No.3SB were allegedly entered with the plaintiff. In respect of Flat No.2SA and Flat No.2SB it was entered with Mr.L.Abhishek Kankaria. As per the instructions of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, deed of cancellation of sale agreement for flat No.3FC was executed by Mr.B.Balan on 10.03.2011 and Flat No.3SA was executed on 16.03.2012. However, during such pendency, Mr.B.Balan had, due to the delay of the project and on account of the sale agreement, approached the plaintiff for redressal. In order to ward off the doubts, the plaintiff had on 31.01.2011 issued a letter of commitment. 6-3. On 25.10.2013 another supplemental agreement was entered into between the first defendant and the defendants 2 & 3. Clause No.1 of the said agreement ensured that the defendants 2 & 3 shall use and benefit free from all encumbrances. Further, it is agreed in Clause 8 that the 1st defendant shall assure the handing of the properties bearing B, C, D, E properties as mentioned to the defendants 2 & 3. According to the defendants 2 & 3, entire sale consideration was not paid by the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff by suppressing the facts, has filed the present suit. The suit is hit by limitation. No cause of action has been made out by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants 2 & 3 sought for vacating the interim injunction and to reject plaint. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The suit was filed for specific performance. The suit is hit by limitation. No cause of action has been made out by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants 2 & 3 sought for vacating the interim injunction and to reject plaint. 7. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The suit was filed for specific performance. It is the specific averment of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant, as a builder, entered into two construction agreements dated 15.04.2011 for the said two flats and received the entire cost of construction from the plaintiff as per the said agreement; though the entire sale consideration was paid to the defendants, the defendants failed and neglected to register sale deeds for undivided share in land in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, a reading of the averments in the plaint would clearly make out a cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance. But, the defendants 2 & 3, without dealing with the averments in the plaint, by putting up their defence, have taken out an application to reject the plaint and another application to vacate the interim injunction order. In the affidavits, filed by the defendants 2 & 3 in support of the above applications, the defendants 2 & 3 has not stated as to how no cause of action has been made out in the plaint to file the suit for specific performance. Though the learned counsel for the defendants 2 & 3 submitted that the dispute is only between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and that the defendants 2 & 3 are suffering on account of the dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, that may be their defence in the suit; but, the same can not serve as ground for rejection of the plaint. 9. In fact, the entire submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants/defendants 2 & 3 and the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications are nothing but the defence in the main suit. Only if the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action, then the plaint can be rejected. In the instant case, only a bald statement was made in the affidavit that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Only if the averments made in the plaint do not disclose any cause of action, then the plaint can be rejected. In the instant case, only a bald statement was made in the affidavit that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. Except the said bald statement, no case has been made out by the applicants / defendants 2 & 3 within the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. In this regard, it would be appropriate to extract Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and the same is extracted hereunder:- "The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; [(e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9]; [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff]". Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants/defendants 2 & 3 that deed of cancellation of sale agreement for flat No.3FC was executed by Mr.B.Balan on 10.03.2011, it will not serve as a ground for rejection of the plaint. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 2 & 3 does not fit in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 2 & 3 does not fit in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint. It is well settled legal principle for rejection of plaint that the averments in the plaint alone have to be taken into consideration and the defence taken in the written statement is wholly irrelevant. I find that the averments made in the plaint do not suffer from any legal infirmity and the allegation made in the plaint is, prima facie making out a clear case for specific performance and also for permanent injunction. The grounds raised by the defendants 2 & 3 in these applications can be considered only at the time of trial. Absolutely, I do not find any merit in this application. Therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the applications are dismissed. No costs.