The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to reject a plaint if it is found to be an abuse of the process of the court, even on grounds not enumerated under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.12.2017 made in I.A.No. 866 of 2016 in O.S.No.472 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sub-Judge, Avinashi.)

1. The defendant in O.S.No.472 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Court, Avinashi (O.S.No.416 of 2012 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirupur) has come up with this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the dismissal of his application in I.A.No. 866 of 2016, seeking rejection of the plaint, by the Trial Court.

2. The said suit has been filed by the respondent herein, seeking a declaration that the decree dated 02.07.1983 made in O.S.No. 40 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-court, Tirupur is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, a declaration that the decree dated 23.01.2002 made in O.S.No. 62 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirupur is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, directing partition of the suit property into four equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff, put him in possession of such share so allotted and for costs.

3. The application for rejection of the plaint was filed mainly on the ground that the suit itself is an abuse of process of court. The history behind the present proceedings is as follows:-

3.1. The suit property originally belonged to one Kondappa Gounder and his son Ponnusamy, who had mortgaged the same on 14.07.1980 in favour of M/s. Shanmuga Vadivu Chit Funds represented by its Proprietrix Srimathi. Rukmani. Since the mortgagors failed to repay the mortgage money, the mortgagee filed a suit in O.S.No. 937 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur. The said suit came to be decreed on 02.07.1983. Since Kondappa Gounder, who was the second defendant in the suit died even prior to the suit, he was exonerated. His son, Ponnusamy was already on record as the first defendant.

3.2. After decree, Ponnusamy sold a portion of the property mortgaged to one Sivagami on 15.03.1984. The decree holder filed E.P.No. 107 of 1985 seeking execution of the decree in O.S.No. 937 of 1982. The property was sold in execution on 22.01.1986. The petitioner herein was the successful bidder of the auction that was held on 22.01.1986. Upon confirmation of the sale, the petitioner filed E.A.No. 555 of 1986 for delivery of possession. The Executing Court ordered delivery on 09.02.1987. It is claimed that the purchaser was put in symbolic possession of the property.

3.3. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No. 62 of 1999 seeking recovery of possession of the suit property against Ponnusamy and Sivagami, the purchaser from Ponnusamy. A prayer for setting aside the sale deed executed by Ponnusamy in favour of Sivagami was also sought for. The said suit came to be decreed on 23.01.2002. The petitioner herein filed E.P.No. 44 of 2005 seeking delivery of possession. The executing court ordered delivery on 06.01.2006. The said order was challenged before this Court in C.R.P.No. 485 of 2006. The said Civil Revision Petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 18.12.2006. Thereafter, the purchaser from the mortgagor namely, Sivagami and her son, Yoga Prakash filed a suit in O.S.No. 81 of 2007 claiming that the entire proceedings in O.S.No. 40 of 1982 and E.P.No. 107 of 1985 are illegal and null and void and the decree in O.S.No. 40 of 1983 was obtained by fraud since the legal heirs of Kondappa Gounder had no saleable interest in the hypotheca on the date of the auction namely, 22.01.1986.

4. On the above contentions, a decree for partition was sought for by Sivagami and her son, Yoga Prakash. It is seen from the records that the said suit was reportedly settled out of Court and the suit was dismissed on the basis of a memo filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. The defendant namely, the petitioner herein and the original mortgagor had not signed the memo reporting such settlement.

5. In the interregnum, the petitioner has approached th