Court held it a fit case for exercise of powers u/s 151 Cr.P.C.

1. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.191 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District, Munsif, Kuzhithurai. The respondent herein filed the above suit for injunction restraining the petitioner and others from interfering with his possession.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff he was in possession of the property from 1966 onwards and his possession is not liable to be disturbed by any one including the petitioner. He also filed for an appointment of a Commissioner verified and report about the physical features of the suit property and the building situated therein, and to specifically note the details of the compound wall with the gate surrounding the suit property etc. In the plaint it is stated that there was earlier a suit in between the respondent and his elder brother Arumuga Nadar and his wife Ponnachi in O.S.No.640 of 1974. The suit was decreed declaring that Arumuga Nadar and his wife are entitled to ¾th share in the property and the same is allowed to be divided and partitioned. A preliminary decree and a final decree were passed. An Execution Application was also filed and the property was also taken delivery through court. It is submitted in the plaint itself that the very same respondent filed O.S.No.589 of 1978 for setting aside the decree in O.S.No.640 of 1974 and the same was dismissed. An appeal was taken in A.S.No.3 of 1978 which also met the same fate and the Second Appeal No. 1003 of 1988 is also admittedly dismissed.

3. Thereafter, the respondent also filed another suit in O.S.No.82 of 1993 making the present petitioner as a party. It is at this juncture, Arumuga Nadar and his wife who were not able to take possession as per the decree in O.S.No.640 of 1974 executing a sale deed in favour of one Sathiya George on 15.5.1980 and the present petitioner is claiming under Sathiya George who is also now dead.

4. O.S.No.82 of 1993 was also filed by the very same respondent for declaration of the very same title of the property and for consequent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession. That suit was also dismissed. Of-course, there is an observation in that case that the sale deed in favour of Sathiya George was against the provisions of Registration Act. It was also held in that case that the sale deed ought to have been registered within the area of jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar where the property is situated. But, since it is registered within the jurisdiction of another Sub-Registrar, it violates the principles of law and therefore invalid.

5. It was also found in that case that the respondent herein has no title or possession and his rights are already adjudicated in earlier litigation. It is also to be taken note that O.S.No.589 of 1978 was filed for setting aside the decree in O.S. No. 640 of 1974 and for recovery of possession. Therefore, he is also not entitled to get injunction as prayed for. It is after dismissal of O.S.No.82 of 1993, the present suit is filed.

6. The main reason for filing this revision is that present suit is an abuse of process of court. The respondent has himself filed the earlier litigation and has failed. He cannot collaterally attack the judgment and again repeatedly file suits after suits and thus harass the parties.

7. It is also contended that there is a boundary separating the property which was put up by him after intervention of court in criminal revisions. It is said that he has put up boundary and the same was demolished and a police complaint was filed which was not taken note of by the authorities and therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court and it is in pursuance to the orders of this Court the boundary was put up with the police aid. When the respondent himself has filed a suit for recovery of possession after setting aside the earlier decree and having failed in his attempt he cannot file the suit as if he is in possession and that too from the year 1966, onwards.

8. Learned counsel argued that i