VINOD K.SHARMA, J.

"Common Order"

1. Original Application No.395 of 2011 has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their men, agents or any person acting under them, from alienating, creating any third party interests or in any manner dealing with the suit property pending disposal of the suit.

2. Original Application No.396 of 2011 has been moved by the applicant/plaintiff, for grant of interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their men, agents or any person acting under them, from interfering with the applicants possession and enjoyment of the suit property pending disposal of the suit.

3. This suit has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to direct, the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and also for a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to hand over the original title deeds of the suit property to the plaintiff.

4. It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff, that the respondents were the absolute owners of a plot measuring 2 grounds 390 sq. ft. at Door Nos.4 and 5, Haddows Road, Numgambakkam, Chennai, where the respondents constructed a residential building consisting of a ground + 4 floors in the year 1981. The applicant purchased the ground floor showroom measuring 1000 sq. ft. and a first floor flat measuring 1430 sq. ft. along with 876 sq. ft. undivided share in the land.

5. The ground floor was used by the applicant as an office whereas the first floor was used for residential purposes. The defendants, who sold all the apartments, retained the fourth floor apartment, for their own use. In 1997 and 2007, the applicant purchased two more flats one at first and other at second floors from respective owners of these flats.

6. It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff, that the respondents in December, 1996, approached the applicant/plaintiff for sale of the 4th floor apartment along with the undivided share in the land to the applicant. The suit property was given as collateral security, to secure the financial assistance availed by respondents for their various business ventures, from the Indian Bank.

7. The respondents agreed to clear the dues with the Bank, subject to plaintiff buying the property. The title deeds of the flat had been deposited with the Indian bank, therefore the respondents expressed difficulty to execute a written agreement to sell. It was thus under the oral agreement that the property was agreed to be sold in favour of the respondents.

8. The applicant/plaintiff further assert that they were put in possession of the suit property on 26.12.1996, but, the defendants/respondents have failed to execute the sale deed.

9. It is the case of the applicant/plaintiff, that a notice was received on 11.01.2011 from the respondents, in the complete breach of faith and trust. It was claimed in the notice that the applicant was tenant of the property on a monthly rent of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and it was asserted that the applicant was in arrears of rent. The applicant/plaintiff was also called upon to pay the arrears of rent or face legal action.

10. On the facts stated herein above, the applicant/plaintiff prays for grant of an order of injunction as prayed for.

11. The applications were adjourned on request from time to time. It was on 30.11.2011, a request was made in this Court for adjournment for by today. The learned counsel for the applicant is not present.

12. It is stated by the learned counsel representing counsel for the applicant, that a letter has been addressed to the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, for not posting the cases of the learned counsel before this Court, as on an earlier occasion this Court did not follow the procedure suggested by the learned counsel for hearing his case. The detailed order was passed by this Court on refusal of the learned counsel to argue the matter.

13. The request made by the learned counsel on the fact of it is uncalled for, as it amounts to forum shopping, which cannot be permitted by any Court. The Courts are not to function on the dictates of the counsel, as the right of the counsel is only to address arguments, which casts corresponding duty as the Court to record the arguments while passing judgments. It is not for the counsel to decide where his case is to be listed, as it falls within the domain of Honble Chief Justice. The attempt made by the learned counsel thus deserves to be depreciated in strong words. At the same time, it is noted that it is the prerogative, to fix case and take a decision on the letter written by the learned counsel. The case is listed for hearing before this Court therefore it is to be decided on merit.

14. The reading of the averments in the applications show, that the applicant/plaintiff claims to have purchased the property under the oral agreement, and that the applicant is in possession of the property under part performance of sale. The pleadings in the applications, also show, that the non-applicants have issued a notice calling upon the applicant/plaintiff to remit the rental or in alternative face the legal action. Even as per the case of applicant/plaintiff no illegal means have been adopted to dispossess the applicant/plaintiff.

15. No injunction can be granted against the defendants restraining them from initiating legal proceedings in accordance with law. As regard other application is concerned, the rights of applicant/plaintiff are protected under "lis pendens. The proceedings in application even if taken on its face value do not make out any case for grant of injunction as prayed.

Consequently, both the applications are dismissed.

No costs.