ORDER :

1. This Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.02.2019 in I.A.No.1688 of 2017 in O.S.No.219 of 2012 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

2. The respondents herein filed the suit in O.S.No.219 of 2012 and the revision petitioner is a builder and he filed the I.A.No.1688 of 2017 in O.S.No.219 of 2012.

3. The plaintiffs, P.Sundaram and P.Samuvel are respondents in the I.A.No.1688 of 2017.

4. The plaintiffs/respondents filed the suit against the revision petitioner/1st defendant and other 13 defendants, with a prayer to declare the sale deeds executed by the 1st defendant/revision petitioner as illegal, void, ab-initio and does not bind the plaintiffs/respondents.

5. In the above said suit, the revision petitioner filed the I.A.No.1688 of 2017 for rejection of plaint on the ground that in E.A.No.101 of 2013 in E.P.No.14 of 2013 in O.S.No.173 of 2010, the Hon'ble Additional Sub-Court has already declared that the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.173 of 2010 is null and void. The revision petitioner filed the above said E.A and the executive Court accepted the contention of the petitioner as per the finding of the E.B. Court in the above said E.A.No.101 of 2013. The plaintiffs has no cause of action for the above said suit and pleaded for rejection of the plaint. Further the plaintiffs filed counter. The trial Court after considering the arguments of the counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition on the ground that the cause of action is a bundle of facts, which is required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief sought for. In the above said E.A.No.101 of 2013, the title of the petitioner was not decided and directed to decide the title in the pending suit, O.S.No.120 of 2010. In O.S.No.103 of 2011, only obstruction has been recorded and closed the E.A. Considering the plaint averments alone, the Court has to decide the case, whether it has cause of action or not. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for rejection of plaint under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed this revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law and failed to consider the fact that the respondents/plaintiffs in the suit failed to prove their title over the suit property in E.A.No.101 of 2013 and E.P.No.14 of 2013, before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet, which was disposed of by order dated 21.09.2016. In the above said proceedings, at the time of enquiry the respondents/plaintiffs did not produce any evidence to establish their title over the suit property. It was recorded by the Court in its order. The obstruction was sustained by the Court. The respondents/plaintiffs did not file any appeal as provided by law. It became final. The finding in E.A.No.101 of 2013 in E.P.No.14 of 2013 directly and substantially decided the issue of title over the suit property. All the question of right of title and interest raised by the petitioner/obstructer were sustained, so that order will operate as resjudicata as contemplated.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents/plaintiffs ought to have impleaded all the subsequent purchaser of the revision petitioner in the Suit in O.S.No.120 of 2010. He had not impleaded them as a parties to the suit. By virtue of Section 52 of TP Act, the respondents/plaintiffs ought to have impleaded the subsequent purchasers to bind the result of the suit in O.S.No.120 of 2010. But he failed. He further submitted that the finding in E.A.No.101 of 2013 E.P.No.14 of 2013 become final, so that the respondents/plaintiffs again filed a separate suit for remedy and it is barred under law. He further reiterated the other grounds raised in the grounds of revision petition and also relied upon the following decisions to support his arguments,

1. In the case of T.Arivanandam Vs. TV Saty