Rejection of the plaint filed for same cause of action held proper.

1. The Plaintiffs in Civil Filing No.8269 of 1997 on the file of principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai are the Revision petitioners. This revision is filled under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

.2. The impugned order is rejecting the plaint on the ground that for the same issue, there was adjudication and therefore the suit is prima facie barred. The same is challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

.3. It is not disputed by the plaintiff/petitioners that between them and the respondents herein there is an earlier suit in O.S.No.2 of 1983. The suit was decreed, taken appeal without success and confirmed by me in Second Appeal No.874 of 1994. The present plaintiffs were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased appellant in that case. After a detailed discussion of the entire matter. I held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the decree granted in the suit is not liable to be interfered with. An argument was also taken before me that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2 of 1983 were given a decree to which they are not legally entitled to and the same will cause great injustice to them. The said contention was rejected by me in para. 13 of my judgment which reads as under.

."Learned counsel for the appellants contended that a person who is not entitled to any right is allowed to get partition and this will cause great prejudice to his client. I cannot agree with the said submission. The first defendant did not care to cross examine the plaintiffs witness in spite of the fact that adjournments were given liberally for the said purpose. Since no document was produced before the trial court or even before the lower appellate court, they relied only on the written statement from which they could only infer that the appellant (first defendant) had no case as alleged in the pleading. Due to failure on his part to produce the documents referred to in the pleadings courts below could only take on adverse inference against the first defendant (appellant), rightly. Learned counsel for the appellants here in agreed that if this Court holds that sufficient opportunity has been given, he cannot argue the case on merits." The second appeal filed by the very same appellants was dismissed on 22. 1997 and the present suit was filed in September, 1997. In the plaint on the file of the lower Court, there is no statement about the Judgment of this Court and what they wanted was to have a decree in O.S.No.2 of 1983 from executing the same. As I said, the very suit was filed long after the dismissal of second appeal whereby I confirmed the decision in O.S.No.2 if 1983. Decree of this Court is suppressed and when a decree is confirmed by this Court, it follows that the decree in O.S.No.2 of 1983 merges with the decree of this Court.

4. That apart, on a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the petitioners wants to re-agitate the entire matter once again. It is for that reason the Lower Court held that the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is this conduct on the part of the litigant is commonly known as abuse of process of Law. It is stated.

"(1) The initiation of a proceedings in a Court of Justice for the purpose of mounting a collateral attack on a final decision adverse to the intending plaintiff reached by a Court of competent juris-diction in previous proceedings in which the plaintiff had a full opportunity of contesting the matter is, as a matter of public policy, an abuse of the process of the Court;

(2) The fact that collateral attack is by means of a civil action raising an identical issue decided against the plaintiff in a competent court of criminal jurisdiction is immaterial since if the issue was proved against the plaintiff beyond all reasonable doubt in the Criminal Court it will be wholly inconsistent if it is not decided against him on the balance of probability in the civil action. The plaintiff’s civil action therefore is liable to be struck out as an abuse of the p