Suit being of frivolous nature struck of the file.

Seventh defendant in O.S.No.94 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai town is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India.

2. Material facts which necessitated filing of this revision could be summarised thus: Respondents herein filed O.S.No.1459 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai against petitioner, Suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property therein. Property covered by suit is included in resurvey Nos.12/1, 112/2 and 12/3. It is not disputed that injunction application filed by plaintiff was dismissed and the matter was taken in C.M.A. and the same was also not successful. it is also not in dispute that a revision was taken against that order which was also dismissed at the admission stage with a direction to dispose of the suit within stipulated time.

3. While so, very same plaintiffs filed O.S.No.94 of 1997 on the file of same court. Even though there are eight defendants in the suit, the relief sought for is only as against the present petitioner. Relief sought for in that suit read thus,

“(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant his men and agents from trespassing into or encroaching the suit A-Schedule properties in any manner whatsoever:

(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant, his men and agents from altering the physical features of the B-Schedule properties by raising further constructions or in any manner whatsoever:

(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant, his men and agents from altering the physical features of the C-Schedule properties by converting the same into house site plots or in any manner whatsoever;

(d) For a permanent injunction decree restraining the 8th defendant from registering any document that may be executed by the 7th defendant or any person through him in favour of third parties in respect of the suit properties mentioned in the description of properties herein;

(e) Directing the contesting defendants to pay the costs of the present suit;

(f) To pass such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.“

4. ‘A’ Schedule property in the plaint is mostly the property in the earlier suit though one more additional survey number is included as resurvey No.19/3, It was in respect of that property injunction application was dismissed in the earlier litigation.

5. With regard to ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule items, averments in the plaint may be stated thus: In para IX of the plaint it is said, ‘At this juncture it is significant to note that this B Schedule suit properties were already taken over by the defendants 1 to 3 even as early as 28.10.1982 from its previous owners. Thereafter B Schedule properties belong to and vested with (the defendants 1 to 3) Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the possession of the said properties has also been taken by the defendants 1 to 3. ‘So far as B Schedule property is concerned, plaintiffs allege that defendants 1 to 3 and Madurai Corporation colluded together and changed the revenue records in favour of 7th defendant, who is the petitioner herein and on that basis he is attempting to put up construction in B Schedule properties.

6. With regard to C Schedule items, para X of the plaint says thus: ‘The plaintiffs further submit that the suit C Schedule properties comprised in R.S.No.18/2 in Ponmeni Village, Madurai are situated on the western side of their A Schedule suit properties and these lands including the possession of the same were also already acquired and taken over by the defendants 1 to 3 on 28.10.1982 from its previous owners. The defendants 1 to 3, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has also changed the patta, adangal and all other revenue records in its name, and thereby the defendants 1 to 3 Tamil Nadu Housing