The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited circumstances under which the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised and the need for the petitioner to seek relief through the trial Court or avail common law remedy first.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary power of judicial superintendence in respect of taking on file and issuance of summons in O.S. No.20 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikal.)

This revision is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S. No.20 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikal, Pondicherry.

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 5 filed a suit in O.S. No.20 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Karaikal, seeking for permanent injunction against the 20th defendant, who is the revision petitioner, restraining him from making or continuing with any construction in any part of the suit property with the collusion and connivance of the other 19 defendants either by himself or through his men and for a mandatory injunction against the petitioner directing him to remove any construction made or to be made by him during the pendency of the suit.

3. It is the pointed case of the petitioner that the said respondents earlier filed a suit in O.S. No.116 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikkal against one Sivasubramanian and three others seeking for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in that case. The suit property in respect of which relief was claimed in that case was 180 kuzhies of Manaikattu with a building bearing municipal door No.66/1, with the bio gas plant and standing trees manure pit, cattle shed etc. The trial court decreed the suit for an extent of 100 kuzhies only. On appeal in A.S. No.45 of 1993, the decree was modified by declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree in respect of 136 kuzhies of land. Two second appeals were filed by the respective parties in S.A. Nos.1017 and 1224 of 1996 against that order. By judgment dated 01.09.1998, the decree of the trial Court was restored in the second appeal. The petitioner is the purchaser of the property which was a portion of the subject matter of the suit property. Now, the respondents/plaintiffs, on an erroneous view of the matter, filed the present suit including the extent for which injunction decree has not been granted in the earlier round of litigation by arraying the legal representatives of the deceased Subramanian along with the petitioners. Hence, the present revision is filed by the subsequent purchaser, the 20th defendant invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that the present suit is abuse of process of law and the suit should not have been taken on file.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that originally, the trial Court granted a decree only in respect of 100 kuzhies in favour of the respondents and recorded a finding that the defendants therein who were the vendors of the petitioner/20th defendant are having a right over the suit property over an extent of 60 kuzhies and remaining 20 kuzhies belong to nobody, which decree has been confirmed by this Court in the second appeal. Hence, the suit has to be rejected by this Court as abuse of process of law, and the suit is hit by res judicata. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgments in the cases of Rani Mohanraj v. P.Rajarathinam, 1999-2 LW 757; S. Viswanathan v. Sri Muruga Agencies, 2002 (1) TLNJ 13; K.K. Swaminathan v. Srinivasagam, 2004-1-LW 250; and Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands, (1981) 3 All ER 727, to bring home his contention that the suit has to be rejected.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals through out the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any