The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of the court, where the repeated filing of suits and litigations was found to be an abuse of the court's process.

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 17.02.2003 passed by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, granting Interim Injunction in I.A.No.2867 of 2003 in O.S.No.724 of 2003. The Union of India – Postal Department represented by its Chief Post Master General is the Revision Petitioner.

2. The multifarious litigations relate to T.S.No.8019/2 situate at T.Nagar, Chennai, measuring about 5 Grounds 446 Sq.Ft, which stood in the name of Ramasamy Chettiyar. The property was acquired by the Postal Department for the construction of Post Office and for other purposes of Postal Department like the construction of the Administrative Block and other purposes. Aggrieved over the acquisition of the land, Wife and Family Members of the Land Owner have entangled the Postal Department in number of litigations. The numerous litigations appear to have been filed for the collateral purpose of either insisting the Postal Department to reconvey the land or for getting more rent or for the purpose of keeping the litigations alive. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court, relitigating the matter. The narration of facts and reference to the litigations would bring home the improper use of machinery of the Court. The tendency of the parties seem to be that filing of Writ Petitions by Seethalakshmi Achi, Wife of Ramasamy Chettiyar; filing of Civil Suits by other Members of the Family are as if the acquisition proceedings are not known to them. The tendency appears to be that in cases of number of writ petitions, the Postal Department has been impleaded as party. But, the Civil Suits are filed (without impleading the Postal Department) under the pretext as if they are simple suits for partition involved amongst the family members.

3. For proper understanding of the improper use of the process of the Court, it is necessary to refer to the various litigations. The parties – Petitioners / Plaintiffs in the various litigations are related as under:-

Ramasamy Chettiar

= Seethalakshmi Achi

(Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.18704/1996

| W.P.No.20726/1998

| W.P.No.18110/2001)

|---------------------------------

Sabarathinam (Plaintiff in |

O.S.No.2653 of 2000) Meena

Jaganathan

= Vallisabarathinam

|

--------------------------------

| |

Annapoorni Jambulingam

(Plaintiff in (Plaintiff in

O.S.No.7891/00 O.S.No.7891/00

and O.S.No.724/03) and O.S.No.724/03)

4. Writ Petitions are filed by Seethalakshmi Achi challenging the acquisition proceedings. According to her, the Postal Department's Policy does not permit the Acquisition of land and also construct building for small post office purposes. As the guidelines provide only for renting out building for such purpose, the acquisition of the land measuring about 5 Grounds 446 Sq.Ft at a place (where only 420 Sq.Ft building is to be constructed) is an act of deprivation at the legitimate right of the Landlord.

5. W.P.No.18704 of 1996:- After the demise of Ramasamy Chettiyar, nearly after a decade since the property value has been increased manifold in Chennai, the Wife of Late Ramasamy Chettiar Smt.Seethalakshmi Achi had sent a representation dated 15.11.1996 to the Government for reconveyance of the acquired land. Since the said representation was not considered, this Writ Petition was filed. By order dated 28.01.1997, this Court directed the Union of India, Ministry of Communication to consider the representation dated 15.11.1996 on merits and in accordance with law. By letter dated 11.09.1997, Government of Inida, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post had sent a reply stating that the representation was considered and the property in question was required for operational needs of the Department which is a public utility Department. Therefore, the said representation was rejected.

6. W.P.No.20726 of 1998:- After the dismissal of the above said Writ Petition in W.P.No.18704 of 1996, another representation was sent on 11.02.1998 by the