Filing and withdrawing of petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of court.

1. Decree-holder in O.S.No.14 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India.

2. O.S.No.14 of 1972 was filed by petitioner for recovery of property scheduled in the plaint. The subject matter of the suit read thus: Kancheepuram town, inVallal Pachaiyappan Street to the east of the street to the south of the house of Rathina Mudali and others, to the west of Municipal Narasam, to the north of Varadadappa Mudalis house, premises bearing Door No.34-AB, S.No.2554 measuring 29’ × 125’ with all the structures well, tap, electric fittings.

3. After obtaining decree, petitioner filed E.P.No.5 of 1978 for getting delivery of possession. When delivery was ordered, one Munusamy Mudaliar obstructed delivery of possession claiming some right over the property. Obstructor was none other than the father of decree-holder. It was he, who conducted suit on behalf of decree-holder. Obstruction petition was dismissed and decree-holder was allowed to get possession after removing obstruction. For the said purpose, executing court relied on documentary evidence. About 65 documents was produced by Munusamy Mudaliar. Executing Court held that Munusamy Mudaliar, the obstructor did not have any right, title or interest in the property and the obstruction is frivolous.

4. Aggrieved by the order of Executing Court, obstructor filed C.M.A.No.623 of 1980 on the file of this Court. Justice Rathinam (as he then was) dismissed the appeal on 1.12.1981. Learned Judge reappreciated the entire evidence that was produced before executing court and came to the conclusion that the obstruction is frivolous. Learned Judge relied on Ex.A-1, a deposition given by Munusamy Mudaliar, wherein he has admitted that he has been living in the same house and himself and his daughter i.e., decree-holder are residing there as family and he was assisting decree-holder in conduct of suit. In the suit, recovery was allowed in favour of decree-holder after finding that there was trespass and defendants forcibly occupied the house, The civil miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the order of learned single Judge, L.P.A.No.4 of 1982 was filed. The Division Bench also confirmed the decision of learned single Judge. It may not be out of place to mention that when civil miscellaneous appeal was pending, obstructor died and respondent herein was impleaded as his legal heir. He got himself impleaded on the basis of will, alleged to have been executed by Munusamy Mudaliar. It was he, who filed L.P.A. before the Division Bench, He also moved the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.14147 of 1986, which was also dismissed.

6. Respondent again moved Honourable Supreme Court by filing Review Petition No.120 of 1991. The same was also dismissed.

7. Undaunted by the failure in the earlier proceedings, respondent again filed O.S.No.205 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram to declare his title to suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining defendant from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff under the guise of executing decree in O.S.No.14 of 1972. In that suit he further wanted declaration that the decree obtained in O.S.No.14 of 1972 is not binding on him. An application for injunction was also filed in I.A.No.503 of 1997 and the same was dismissed. The matter was taken on appeal in C.M.A.No.16 of 1997 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, which also did not meet with success.

8. When his attempt to stall the execution of decree failed, he filed another suit as O.S.No.501 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram. That suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining decree-holder from executing decree. In that case, he contended that without partition, decree cannot be executed.

9. Though he moved an application for injunction, no order was passed thereon.

10. When