This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22.08.2012 passed in I.A.No.1639 of 2011 in Trust OP No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruchirappalli.

2. The allegations contained in I.A.No.1639 of 2011 are as follows (for the sake of convenience the rank of the parties are taken as in I.A.):

2(a). The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent Educational Trust by name ADS Educational Trust is running an Engineering College known as Sri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology. The first respondent is represented by the Managing Trustee and Honorary Chairman of the Trust and the third respondent is Vice Chairman. The second respondent is not a Trustee, is not entitled to represent the first respondent. He is a third party. He is not entitled to use the seal of the Trust or the college. The same respondent is venturing on forgery and fabricated and concocted documents and filed a suit in O.S.No.1072 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Trichy and also filed an application in I.A.No.643 of 2010 for temporary injunction. The maintainability of the suit was challenged by the petitioner in I.A.No.76 of 2011 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC praying for rejection of the plaint. The Principal Sub Judge by order dated 03.03.2011 rejected and struck off the plaint, allowing I.A.No.76 of 2011 and dismissing I.A.No.643 of 2010.

2(b). The first respondent filed another suit in O.S.No.652 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichy for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the management and administration of the Trust and the college by him. The suit in O.S.No.652 of 1996 was renumbered as O.S.No.485 of 2005 and the same was decreed as prayed for after contest.

2(c). The Trust Deed dated 01.06.1985 and the Additional Trust Deed of 16.12.1987 are the trust documents. The extension deed of 16.12.1987 is irrevocable document. The alleged cancellation deed, dated 06.09.2001 is a rank forgery and it was a concocted fabricated document. It is a creation by the second respondent. He also created the document by forgery resolutions dated 11.11.2010, 29.11.2010 and 03.12.2010.

2(d). Having frustrated in all his attempts, he has filed frivolous and vexatious Trust O.P. after rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.1072 of 2010. It is against the provisions of Trust Act and Specific Relief Act. His attempt is to paralyse the Trust and the institution, when he is not a Trustee. The issues involved in the above said Trust OP have already been decided in the suit and hence, the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2011 in O.S.No.1072 of 2010 is binding on the parties to the case and hence, the present Trust OP which is subsequent to the above said suit is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the Trust OP is barred by res judicata. Unless the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1072 of 2010 is set aside by the competent court, the present Trust OP cannot be entertained at all. Having allowed the suit to be dismissed on merits, it is not open to the second respondent to file the present Trust OP, since it is barred by law. He is not entitled to agitate the same matter, which was already decided by Court in O.S.No.1072 of 2010.

2(e). The respondents 1 and 2 have no cause of action for filing the Trust OP. In view of the above, the Trust OP No.4 of 2011 has to be struck off from the file.

2(f). In the counter filed by the second respondent, the allegations are same. The petition is not maintainable in law and on facts. The second respondent denies all the allegations in the affidavit. It is denied that the petitioner and the third respondent are Managing Trustees of ADS Educational Trust and the third respondent is alone managing the Trust. The petitioner ceased to be a Managing Trustee in view of the Cancellation Deed dated 06.09.2001. He has appointed the second respondent as Managing T