The main legal point established is that a suit does not amount to re-litigation or abuse of process of court if it involves different relief and scope compared to a previous suit.

1. The defendants 1 to 7, 9 and 10 in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 on the file of the XV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, are the revision petitioners.

2. The first respondent herein filed the suit against the revision petitioners and others for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and also filed I.A.No.16303 of 2012 under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for the grant of ad-interim injunction and ad-interim injunction was granted on 01.11.2012 and the same was challenged in CRP(PD) No.4399 of 2012 by the revision petitioners herein.

3. In CRP(PD)No.4580 of 2012, the revision petitioners prayed for striking off the plaint on the ground of re-litigation and abuse of process of court.

4. Mr. V.Prakash, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the suit filed by the first respondent and the suit filed by the first respondent is a clear abuse of process of court and it amounts to re-litigation and therefore, the plaint in O.S.No.6737 of 2012 is liable to be struck off from the file.

5. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the brother of the plaintiff, by name Dr. Sudhakar filed a suit in O.S.No.5172 of 2012 against the defendants 1 to 8 and 10 in O.S.No.6737 of 2010 and also against other persons for the very same relief and obtained an order ad-interim injunction and the same was suspended on 18.08.2012 by this court and thereafter, the election was held on 19.08.2012 and CRP(PD)No.3235 of 2012 filed by the defendants in O.S.No.5172 of 2012 was allowed and the election results were also published and the officers and others were installed on 19.10.2012 and thereafter, the suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 has been filed by the first respondent for the same relief. The learned Senior counsel, therefore, submitted that it is a clear case of abuse of process of court and it is also a case of re-litigation, which cannot be entertained and encouraged and relied upon the judgment rendered by me reported in 2011(1)MWN (Civil) 140, in the case of Kanniga vs. S.Shankar and 1999-II- MLJ 277, in the case of Moderator, Church of South India, C.S.I. Centre, Chennai and others vs. J.S. Kingsley, for himself and on behalf of members of the C.S.I. Vellore Diocese, Vellore and others, in support of his contention.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashraf Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the suit filed in O.S.No.5712 of 2012 has nothing to do with the present suit O.S.No.6737 of 2012 filed by the first respondent and the scope of both the suits are entirely different and in the present suit, the first respondent has sought for declaration that the decisions taken and the resolutions passed by the 5th defendant on 3rd and 4th November 2011 in respect of XXI Biennial Diocesan Council, namely the 6th defendant is illegal and ultra virus and the appointment of the administrator by the defendants 1 to 5 and conferring the powers by the defendants 1 to 5 on the Administrative Committee and authorization given on 17.01.2012 to convene XXI Biennial Diocesan Council are illegal and unconstitutional and also to declare the order of the defendants 1, 2 to 4, dated 12.10.2012 revising the Administrative Committee as illegal and to declare the entire proceedings of the XXI Biennial Diocesan Council held between 18th and 21st October 2012 as illegal and for mandatory injunction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 10 from appointing or selecting members or constituting any of the Boards of Management or Management Committees in the Karnataka Central Diocese and therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent in O.S.No.6732 of 2012 is maintainable before the City Civil Court, Chennai, as the reliefs are sought for against the defendants 1 to 4, who are residing and are having office within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that in