The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly exercised and only in extraordinary cases.

1. Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the original plaint in O.S.No.86 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem.

2. The petitioner is the 11th defendant, first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 11 are the defendants 1 to 10 in O.S.No.86 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem. The petitioner has filed present civil revision petition to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.86 of 2015.

3(i) According to the petitioner, first respondent earlier filed C.S.Nos.291 of 2007 and 698 of 2011 in this Court for the very same relief as claimed in the present suit. In C.S.No.291 of 2007, first respondent claimed permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and defendants 3, 9 and 10 therein from using the Trade mark “Narasus” {word per se} along with or independent of the device of lady holding a cup within a circle for infringement of Trade mark, passing off, infringement of copy right and consequential reliefs.

(ii) First respondent also filed O.A.Nos.424 to 427 of 2007 for interim order. The said applications were disposed of by this Court on 07.11.2007. Against the same, first respondent filed O.S.A.Nos.234 to 239 of 2008. Even in the said appeals, first respondent did not get any favourable order. First respondent again filed C.S.No.698 of 2011 against the petitioner before this Court for the very same cause of action and identical reliefs, except the word English in the relief portion and did not get any order. In the circumstances, first respondent has filed present suit in O.S.No.86 of 2015 for the very same relief suppressing earlier suit.

(iii) According to the petitioner, the present suit is clear abuse of process of Court and is liable to be struck off. First respondent has suppressed the earlier suit and he is not entitled to file three suits against the petitioner for the very same cause of action for the very same relief in different forum, which is barred by res-judicata and the same has to be struck off. All the three suits are filed against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining him from using the Trade mark “Narasus” {word per se} along with or independent of the device of lady holding a cup within a circle for infringement of Trade mark, passing off, infringement of copy right and consequential reliefs.

(iv) The present suit is frivolous and vexatious suit. The Court has power under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint at threshold itself, but when there is a flagrant violation of principles of law or abuse of process of Court, where there is dereliction of duty of grave nature by lower Court, the parties are entitled to invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present suit is relitigation of earlier suit filed only to harass the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, relied on the following judgments:

(i) C.R.P.(PD).No.2098 of 2009, dated 17.09.2009, in para-41, it is held as follows:

“41. There is no dispute with respect to the legal position that before approaching the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the parties should avail the alternative remedy. However, in a given case, if the attempt of a party to the litigation was to take undue advantage and the suit was a clear abuse of process of law and that too in a case in which the very suit itself was filed only to circumvent the order passed by the Supreme Court, this Court was not expected to be a mute spectator without taking steps to correct the jurisdictional error.”

(ii) 1998 (3) SCC 573 [K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others], wherein at paragraph 44, it has been held as follows:-

“44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The r