The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit can be struck off if it is found to be a clear abuse of process of law and court, based on the pleadings and admission made by the plaintiff.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to struck down the plaint pertaining to the suit in O.S.No.920 of 2012 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.920 of 2012, which was filed by the respondent herein, seeking Judgment and Decree (a) declaring the sale deed, dated 06.03.2000 executed in favour of the petitioners / defendants by the respondent / plaintiff, bearing document No.653 of 2000 registered with Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhipuram, pertaining to the suit property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff (c) directing the defendants or anybody claiming under them to re-convey the suit properties in favour of the respondent / plaintiff without claiming any amount by executing conveyance deed and register the same with the Sub-Registrar's office concerned within such date to be stipulated by the Court below and in the event of failure on the part of the second defendant to do so, to execute and register the required re-conveyance deed for and on behalf of the defendants by the Court below (d) to grant an order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return back to the plaintiff all the original title deeds / records pertaining to the suit properties within the date stipulated by the Court below (e) Award cost of the suit and (h) to pass such other order or orders that the Court below may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. It is seen from the xerox copy of the plaint filed in the typed set of papers, that in the prayer portion, only (a), (c), (d), (e) and (h) are available. Prayer (b), (f) and (g) are not available for the reasons best known to the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit.

4. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners / defendants submitted that the suit filed by the respondent / plaintiff is a clear abuse of process of law and Court by the respondent / plaintiff, hence, the petitioners / defendants have approached this Court, by way of preferring the Revision, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to struck down the plaint, in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and the Court.

5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the alleged cause of action stated in the plaint in paragraph No.11 (xerox copy of the plaint available in the typed set of papers) which reads as follows :

"11. The cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed the nominal agreement for sale, dated 20.06.1997, on subsequent days when the plaintiff paid the interest amounts, on the March 2000 when the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards principal, and failed to pay the interest for the months of May and June 2012, during the last week of June 2012 when the plaintiff applied for an encumbrance certificate and came to light that as if the plaintiff has sold a part of his property to the defendants under a sale deed, dated 06.03.2007, on 27.07.2012 when the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants and demanded to execute and register the cancellation deed with respect to the sale deed, dated 06.03.2000 bearing document No.453 of 2000 and execute and register a reconveyance deed, when the 1st defendant sent an untenable belated reply, dated 28.08.2012, thereafter when the defendants refused to rectify their mistakes and on all subsequent dates when the defendants failed to return the original title deeds of the suit properties to the plaintiff, during the last week of June 2012 when the plaintiff came to know about the forges, fabricated and bogus document regarding the suit property all within Kalapatti village and Coimbatore North Taluk within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court."

6. The respondent / plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he had purchased the suit