JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to dismiss Tr.O.P. No. 25 of 2022 pending on the file of Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and further direct the trial Court to proceed with and conclude, the trial in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017 within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.) 1. This revision is preferred for a direction to the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to dismiss Tr.O.P. No. 25 of 2022, and to further direct the trial Court to proceed with and conclude the trial in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017 pending before it. 2. The first part of the prayer appeared a bit strange and hence, this Court required Mr.N.L. Rajah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, to explain the same. He submitted: *Two suits were laid by the first respondent, the first one is in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017 for a bare injunction before V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, and the second one in C.S. No. 508 of 2008, for specific performance of a certain agreement of sale before this Court. The second mentioned suit in C.S. No. 508 of 2008 has since been transferred to the City Civil Court owing to change in pecuniary jurisdiction where it was taken on file by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, as O.S. No. 5118 of 2020. *Earlier, the revision petitioner/defendant in O.S.No.1409 of 2017 had taken out an application under Section 10 CPC in I.A. No. 14280 of 2018 to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017 till the disposal of C.S. No. 508 of 2008. This application was allowed by the trial court by an order dated 24.07.2019. This was challenged by the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in C.R.P. No. 2688 of 2019. This Court, vide its order dated 18.01.2021, allowed the revision petition. In particular it observed in paragraph No.18 of the said order that both the suits have to be proceeded with separately. *When the revision petitioner wanted stay of proceedings in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017, the 1st respondent assumed a different position, and now, having obtained an order for separate trial of both the suits, he cannot shift its position and seek a joint trial vide Transfer O.P. No. 25 of 2022. *When the revision petitioner wanted stay of proceedings in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017, the 1st respondent assumed a different position, and now, having obtained an order for separate trial of both the suits, he cannot shift its position and seek a joint trial vide Transfer O.P. No. 25 of 2022. He also took this Court through the reasoning of the Court in C.R.P. No. 2688 of 2019, which finds place in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 and the said paragraphs. They read: “17. The suit in C.S. No. 508 of 2018 appears to be filed for a specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed by the vendors of the plaintiff herein in favour of a third party. In a suit for specific performance, the prime point of consideration is that whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, in the present suit for bare injunction, it is not even a title suit. The prime point that has to be considered is that whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit on the date of filing of the suit assumes significance and hence, I find that decision in C.S. No. 508 of 2008 does not have any bearing in respect of the present suit for bare injunction. Merely because of the agreement between the vendor of the plaintiff herein with the third party will not create any right or title in respect of the third party agreement holder, who is the plaintiff therein and thus, I find that in view of the limited scope of right of agreement holder who is not given possession under agreement to sell and his right said to have acquired cannot affect the possessory right of the plaintiff herein, who is said to have been in possession of the suit property pursuant to sale deed. 18. It appears from the records that the plaintiff is protected by the order of interim injunction in the trial Court and hence, I find that the trial of the present suit for bare injunction need not be kept pending till a decision is arrived in the specific performance suit and hence, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 14280 of 2018 is set aside and I.A. stand dismissed. The trial Court is rquired to complete the trial in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It also remains to be stated that the above said C.S. no. 508 of 2008, on the file of the original side of this Court appears to have been transferred to the City Civil Court on the enlargement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court also taken note off.” 3. Instead of ordering notice to the respondents in this revision, this Court would now direct the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose of Transfer O.P. No. 25 of 2022 in the light of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No. 2688 of 2019, after affording an opportunity to the respondents. This exercise must be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order. 4. The learned Counsel submitted that despite the fact that time limit of four months was fixed for the disposal of the suit in O.S. No. 1409 of 2017 in the order passed in C.R.P. NO. 2688 of 2019, the suit has not yet been disposed of, and it is largely halted by several applications that the first respondent has been incessantly filing, and all of which are vexatious. 5. This Court now directs the District Court to dispose of the Tr.O.P.No.25/2022 on or before 29-04-2022, and if it requires advancing the said OP to an earlier date, then to do the same after issuing notice to the first respondent herein. Once the Transfer O.P. is decided, the trial court should endeavour to dispose of the suits as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate not later than four months from the date of communication of this order but excluding the intervening summer holidays -2022. 6. Revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.