The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article 227 is an extraordinary power and should be used sparingly only in extraordinary cases or circumstances. The court also emphasized the duty of the court to prevent abuse of process of court and the power to strike off the plaint when it is brought to the notice of the court that the suit is an abuse of process of court.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.44 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur.

2. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3, respondents 1 & 2 are plaintiffs and respondents 3 to 8 are defendants 4 to 9 in the suit in O.S.No.44 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur. The petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition to strike off the plaint in O.S.No 444 of 2015.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the first petitioner filed O.S.No.24 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur against his father K.V. Raman, second petitioner who is the brother of first petitioner and one M. Ranganathan, third respondent herein for declaration of his title and for mense profits. The said suit was dismissed on 22.12.1995. Against the said order, the first petitioner filed A.S.No.57of 1996 and the said appeal was allowed on 31.07.1997. Aggrieved against the said order, the third respondent herein filed S.A.No.379 of 1999 before this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 17.06.2011 dismissed the Second Appeal. The third respondent herein preferred SLP (Civil) No.6715 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP on 19.10.2012. The first petitioner filed E.P.No.153 of 2011 in O.S.No.24 of 1988 for execution of the decree. The respondents 1 & 2 filed application under Order XXI Rule 97 claiming to be the owner of the property. The said application was rejected without being numbered. CRP (NPD) No.1079 & 1080 of 2013 filed by the respondents 1 & 2 before this Court were also dismissed on 30.04.2014. The respondents 1 & 2 filed SLP (Civil) No.18996 & 18997 of 2014 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Both the SLPs were dismissed as withdrawn.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 is abuse of process of court and they are re-litigating the issue which was already decided in the suit in O.S.No.24 of 1988. The third respondent who is the vendor of vendors of respondents 1 & 2 contested the suit in O.S.No.24 of 1988 filed by the first petitioner claiming title over the suit property and the same was rejected and decree in O.S.No.24 of 1988 attained finality when the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP (Civil) No.6715 of 2012 filed by the third respondent herein.

4(a) The respondents 1 & 2, at the instigation of third respondent are re-litigating the issue. The application filed by respondents 1 & 2 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC was rejected without being numbered and CRP (NPD) Nos.1079 & 1080 of 2013 were also dismissed by this Court by order dated 30.04.2014 and SLP (Civil) Nos.1896 & 18997 of 2014 filed by the respondents 1 & 2 were also dismissed as withdrawn. Once the claim of the third parties are decided under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, there cannot be any suit and the present suit filed by the respondents 1 & 2 is barred by limitation and the Court below failed to take into consideration the finality of earlier suit in O.S.No.24 of 1988.

4(b) The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, relied on the following judgments -

(1) 2009 (2) CTC 57 [Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai v. Selvaraj]

20. In considered opinion of this Court, whenever this Court finds any abuse of process of Courts and if the proceedings initiated are possessing the elements of frivolousness and vexatious ness, this Court can very well pass appropriate orders, invoking Article 227 by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

23. As far as the scope of exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is concerned, the duty of this Court is to infer or discern any vexatious or frivolousness in the proceedings initiated.

(2) [K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi & Others]

42. The Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell in paragraph 18/19/33 (page 344) explains the phrase "abuse of the proc