V.M. Velumani, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decretal order made in I.A. No. 336 of 2015 in O.S. No. 47 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Panruti.

2. The petitioner is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 18 are defendants 2 to 18 in the suit in O.S. No. 47 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Panruti.

3. The 1st respondent filed suit in O.S. No. 47 of 2015 for declaration with regard to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 16, 17, 18 from drawing electric overhead line over the suit property and giving service connection to the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement on 05.03.2015 and is contesting the suit. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 336 of 2015 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint.

4. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has suppressed the material fact and fraudulently filed the suit for the relief sought for. The suit is a clear abuse of process of court on the ground that the suit in O.S. No. 901 of 1986 filed by the father of the first respondent/plaintiff against the second respondent/second defendant and his father Ramakrishnan for declaration and for permanent injunction in respect of very same property was dismissed on 25.02.1992 holding that the first respondent's father did not have title and he is not in possession of the suit property. Against the said judgment and decree dated 25.02.1992, the father of the first respondent filed first appeal in A.S. No. 179 of 1992 which was also dismissed on 13.02.1993 and the said judgment has become final as no further appeal was filed by the father of the first respondent or by the first respondent. Further, the first respondent filed O.S. No. 111 of 2014 for permanent injunction against the 13th respondent not to release the sale deed dated 10.03.2014 executed by the second respondent and their circle in favour of the petitioner. While the said suit was pending, the first respondent has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 47 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti for the above stated relief and the same is hit by provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC.

5. The petitioner has stated how he derived his title and also stated that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner has stated that even before filing of the suit, he is in enjoyment of the property and respondents 16 to 18 have already given electricity connection in favour of the petitioner for the suit property. The first respondent is claiming title based on the gift settlement deed dated 05.11.1999 executed by his father Ramakrishnan and his brother Balaraman executing release deed dated 29.08.2013 in favour of the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the gift settlement dated 05.11.1999 is a concocted document and it is null and void as the said Ramakrishnan did not have any title and did not have possession of the suit property to execute the said settlement deed. The first respondent did not derive any title or possession based on the said settlement deed. The petitioner prayed for rejection of plaint on the ground of res judicata as per Order 2, Rule 2 CPC, suppression of material fact, fraud and abuse of process of court.

6. The first respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the above application and stated that the petitioner did not acquire any title over the suit property as his vendor did not have any right, interest or title over the suit property. The predecessor in title and the petitioner have obtained patta by fraud and political influence. The first respondent has taken steps to get the patta cancelled issued in favour of the predecessor and in favour of the petitioner and to issue patta in his favour. The cause of action of the suit in O.S. No. 111 of 2014 is entirely different from the cause of acti