T. Mathivanan, J.

1. Invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein who are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 72 of 2011 have approached this Court with this revision to struck off the plaint in the above said suit from the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs.

2. Heard Mr. M.L. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Despite service of notice on the respondents 1 to 3, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through their respective counsels.

3. On considering the submissions made by Mr. M.L. Ramesh and also on perusal of the grounds of revision along with the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 which is sought to be struck off from the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram along with plaint in the suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008, the following order is being passed on merits in the absence of the respondents.

4. It is manifested from the records that the suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 seems to have been filed by the respondent herein as against the revision petitioners seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Soon after the filing of the suit, the revision petitioners, who are the defendants in that suit, have approached this Court with this revision invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck off the plaint.

5. It is revealed from the grounds of revision that previously the second revision petitioner and one Rajendran had filed a suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein and one D.Ramadass and Muthulakshmi and thereby sought the relief of permanent injunction. On a conjoint reading of the plaint in O.S.No.130 of 2008 as well as the plaint in O.S.No.72 of 2011, it is clear that the schedule mentioned properties in both the suits are one and the same. The second revision petitioner as well as one Rajendran, who is said to be a co-owner, had filed the above said suit O.S.No.130 of 2008 as against the revision petitioners and two others and subsequently they had also obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.592 of 2008, which is still in force. When the suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 is pending and the ad-interim injunction granted in the above said application in I.A.No.592 of 2008 is in force, the respondents herein have come forward with another suit in O.S.No.72 of 2011 without disclosing the fact of pendency of earlier suit viz., O.S.No.130 of 2008.

6. In this connection, Mr. M.L. Ramesh has submitted that though the second revision petitioner and one G.Rajendran had filed the suit in O.S.No.130 of 2008 for the relief of bare injunction and obtained an order of an-interim injunction in the interlocutory application in I.A.No.592 of 2008, the revision petitioners, had deliberately and wantonly suppressed the fact of pendency of earlier suit, and that their conduct was in gross violation of the settled principles of law and abuse of process of Court and therefore, Mr. M.L. Ramesh has urged this Court to struck off the plaint from the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram.

7. In support of his contention, he has also placed reliance upon the following decisions:

1. Lakshmi & Others v. Prasanna Mani & Another reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 2946;

2. Ranipet Municipality rep. By its Commissioner & Special Officer, Ranipet v. M.Shamsheerkhan reported in 1997-2-L.W- 761; and

3. Seeni alias Sundarammal v. Ramasamy Poosari and others reported in (2000) 3 M.L.J 273.

8. In Lakshmi & Others, cited first supra, a learned single Judge of this Court has observed that frivolous and vexatious proceedings also amount to abuse of process of the Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely frivolous. In the above cited case, a revision was filed by the petitioners to struck off the pleadings of the suit claiming that it was an abuse of process of law and that already the claim of the first respondent therein was settled in the previous proceedings and t