1. The instant revision is a classic example as to how an unscrupulous litigant has grossly abused the process of Court to deprive his opponent to enjoy the fruits of a decree for possession which has reached finality. Public will lose faith in the judiciary if there is no finality in litigation and a party is allowed to re-agitate and re-litigate a matter even after the earlier litigation on the same subject matter has reached a finality by the decision of the highest Court between the same parties. The practice of re-litigating and reagitating the dispute even after the adjudication of the dispute has reached finality by the decision of the highest Court must be nipped in the bud and the Courts must be stringent and ruthless while dealing with such kind of frivolous and vexatious litigations abusing the process of Courts and the judicial system.

2. The instant revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.06.2012, passed in C.M.A.No.72 of 2011 by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the order dated 06.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.343 of 2010 in O.S.No.440 of 2010 by the II Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision:

(i)The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.756 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge at Coimbatore, which was renumbered as O.S.No.440 of 2010. The respondent is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.440 of 2010. The suit was filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(a)To declare the right and title bequeathed in favour of the respondent in the Will dated 16.01.1979 executed by Ramakkal has been extinguished.

(b)To cancel the judgment and decree dated 29.03.1983 in O.S.No.575 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore as null and void.

(c)To cancel the judgment and decree in O.S.No.153 of 2004 dated 28.01.2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore as null and void.

(d)For partition of the suit property into 32 equal shares by metes and bounds, allotting and handing over the possession of 9 sets shares to the petitioners by appointing a Commissioner.

4. The case of the petitioners in the plaint filed in O.S.No.440 of 2010 is that they are the sons and daughters of K.Rangasamy Konar, who was originally the first plaintiff in the suit who died during the pendency of the suit. The respondent, who is the first defendant in the suit is the brother of Rangasamy Konar. The petitioners have admitted the execution of Will dated 16.01.1979 by Ramakkal, the mother of Rangasamy Konar in favour of her another son K.Mani, the respondent herein bequeathing the suit property. But, it is their case that it is a conditional Will, as Ramakkal in her Will has laid a condition that the legatee must pay the debts incurred by her. According to the petitioners, the respondent has not complied with the conditions imposed in the Will and therefore, the right and title bequeathed by Ramakkal in favour of the respondent/first defendant in the Will dated 16.01.1979 has to be extinguished. They also admit that another suit O.S.No.575 of 1980 filed by K.Rangasamy Konar, the petitioners father for partition in respect of the suit property was dismissed on the ground that there is a Will in favour of the respondent/first defendant. They also admit that the First Appeal in A.S.No.249 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore has been dismissed. They also admit that the Second Appeal S.A.No.647 of 1987 on the file of this Court has also been dismissed. But, according to them, they have not raised the issue of non-compliance of the condition attached in the Will and therefore, the present suit O.S.No.440 of 2010 is not barred by res judicata or by limitation.

5. The petitioners also admit that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioners in O.S.No.153 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, seeking possessio