M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. This revision petition arises out of an order dated 18.07.2013 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode in I.A. No.306 of 2013 in O.S. No.176 of 2012 pending on the file of the above said Court. The above said suit came to be filed by C. Baby, the first respondent herein, against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 for praying partition of the properties and further relief to render a true and complete account of business of late M. Chenniappan and to pay cost.

2. The revision petitioner/first defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.306 of 2013 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the ground that an earlier suit was filed by the same plaintiff, which was suppressed and the Court fee was also insufficiently paid, mis-jointer of parties and the company was not added as a defendant in the suit. The application was resisted by the first respondent herein/plaintiff and after enquiry, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned order dated 18.07.2013 dismissed the said application filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant. The said order of the trial Court is challenged in the present civil revision petition before this Court by the petitioner.

3. Narrating the facts leading to the filing of the application in which the impugned order came to be passed will be helpful to understand the case. Admittedly, the suit properties belong to late M. Chenniappan, the father of the revision petitioner and the respondents 1 and 3 and the 2nd respondent's husband. The other respondents in this Revision are erstwhile partners of the firm and relatives. The first respondent has claimed partition in the property and the revision petitioner has objected the same citing the reason that already the competent civil Court in O.S.No.763 of 2010 has declared that the Will which was executed by M.Chinnappan in favour of the revision petitioner. In that decree, the properties were benefited in favour of the Revision Petitioner.

4. The arguments advanced by Mr.P.Kannan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the first respondent are heard. The certified copy of the impugned order and the copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has advanced the following arguments:

(a) The first respondent Mrs.C.Baby has filed a suit in O.S.No.763 of 2010 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode, wherein, she is the third plaintiff. The suit in O.S.No.763 of 2010 was tried and decreed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Erode on 03.03.2011. The suit for declaration to declare the Will dated 14.09.2009, executed by her father late Mr.M.Chenniappan was genuine. The other plaintiffs are the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in this revision petition. In the above suit, they have marked several documents as exhibits and witnesses were also examined. After full-fledged trial the Principal District Munsif Court has granted decree in favour of the Revision Petitioner and also restrained the defendant. Pursuant to the decree passed, the properties are now vested with the revision petitioner and being cosailed with the revision petitioner in the suit proceedings, she/the first respondent cannot claim the present relief. The decree passed in O.S.No.763 of 2010 was duly registered with the Registration Department and the plaintiff/the first respondent has also given no objection certificate for Patta Transfer, Property Tax and Electricity Connection, etc.

(b) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that the first respondent herein has filed the present partition suit in O.S.No.176 of 2012, by suppressing the earlier suit filed by her. The 5th respondent being one of the plaintiff in the suit and after the decree was passed and knowing fully well of the earlier proceedings has c