1. Defendants 1 to 5 are the revision petitioners.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit in O.S. No. 248 of 2010 for declaration that the revocation deed dated 9.5.2005 executed by defendants 1 to 5 is void and non est. In the suit, the revision petitioners filed I.A. No. 2059 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 11 to reject the plaint and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr.R.Subramanian submitted that the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in O.S.No.248 of 2010 is a clear case of re-litigation and abuse of process of court and having regard to the allegations made in the plaint, the plaintiffs have no cause of action and they have no right to maintain this suit and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel further submitted that O.S.No.234 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Salem was filed by the first respondent herein against the fourth revision petitioner and another seeking declaration that the cancellation deed is void, non est and unenforceable in law and for injunction and the suit was rejected by this court by order dated 29.7.2010 i