ORDER : The defendants in O.S.No.6 of 2013 are the revision petitioners in C.R.P.(MD)No.1234 of 2017. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men and agents from organizing or making any strike demonstration, instigate and abet other employees, shouting slogans, resorting to Dharna, gehrao, putting up pandals causing any disturbance to the peaceful atmosphere directly and indirectly within the radius of 300 meters on the four gate ways of the Estate, available on the schedule property. 3. The defendants preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of CPC., in I.A.No.573 of 2015 to reject the plaint on two grounds. 4. According to the defendants herein, the subject matter of the suit is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence, the civil suit would not lie and the other ground projected to reject the plaint, is that the plaintiff do not the power to institute the suit through the power of attorney, as the suit property is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the lower Court has considered the definition of Industrial Dispute as enunciated in Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and also relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2238 (The Premier Automobiles Limited, Vs. Samalakar Shantaram Wadke and others), and held that the relief sought for by the plaintiff does not fall under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, and accordingly relying upon the Section 9 of CPC., following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 966 (Railway board, New Delhi and another Vs. Niranjan Singh) wherein it has been held that there is no fundamental right in holding a meeting in the premises of the employer, came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is maintainable in the Civil Court and accordingly, rejected the first ground putforth by the revision petitioners to reject the plaint. 6. As regards the second ground putforth by the revision petitioners, the lower Court had, based upon the date of rectification 25.09.2015, marked as Exhibit R1 and also relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1966(6) SCC 660 (United Bank India Vs. 6. As regards the second ground putforth by the revision petitioners, the lower Court had, based upon the date of rectification 25.09.2015, marked as Exhibit R1 and also relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1966(6) SCC 660 (United Bank India Vs. Naresh Kumar and others) found that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit in the concerned Court through his power of attorney agent. 7. That apart, it is also noted that the plaintiff's office is located at Kulasekaram and in such view of the matter held that the power agent is entitled to maintain the suit, in respect of the properties of the plaintiff in Kanyakumari District and accordingly held that the second ground putforth by the petitioners for the rejection of the plaint, is also not sustainable in law. 8. The impugned order of the Lower Court is perused and it is found that the Lower Court has considered the merits of the case in all aspects and rightly held that the Civil suit is maintainable and accordingly rejected the application preferred by the revision petitioners/defendants. 9. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in this case. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.