Re-litigating the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against a party amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the plaint dated 25.04.2016 in O.S.No.145 of 2016 pending on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed taking advantage of Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to strike off O.S.No.145 of 2016, now pending on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tiruvottiyur.

2. The defendant in the said suit is the revision petitioner herein.

3. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.145 of 2016.

4. The first respondent/first plaintiff had died pending the revision petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record as third and fourth respondents.

5. The suit in O.S.No.145 of 2016 had been filed by the respondents herein viz., Sekar and Selvam, seeking a judgment and decree in the nature of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/Jayaseelan from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit mentioned agricultural land at Survey Nos.1420/1 and 1336/1 measuring 10 cents and 88 cents respectively at Madavaram Village, Chennai.

6. In the plaint, they stated that the said land had been purchased by their maternal grandfather, Raja Naicker in his name and in the name of his wife Rajammal, by a registered Sale Deed dated 29.08.1929. After the death of Raja Naicker the lands were inherited by his wife Rajammal and daughters Nagammal, Radha and Pattu and son Chokalingam.

7. It had been stated that among the daughters, Nagammal was staying with her mother. The other two daughters had married and left to their marital house. The son Chokalingam led a wayward life and later committed suicide.

8. It was stated that there was a partition. However, the said Nagammal taking advantage of the fact that she was staying with her mother Rajammal, was able to get a Sale Deed in her favour dated 18.06.1979 with respect to the suit lands. There were further encumbrances over the land and finally the defendant/Jayaseelan had purchased the land.

9. It was stated that the mother of the plaintiffs/Radha had filed O.S.No.834 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Ponneri seeking partition and separate possession. That suit was decreed. Permanent Injunction was also granted. Thereafter, the defendant therein filed A.S.No.11 of 2016, which was allowed. It was however, claimed that the possession of the plaintiffs were not disturbed and they continued to be in possession. Therefore, since there was a threat of dispossession, they filed the suit in O.S.No.145 of 2016 seeking protection of possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession.

10. The defendant had thereafter filed the present Revision Petition stating that the said suit is an abuse of process of Court and it should be struck off.

11. In the grounds of the Civil Revision Petition, it had been stated that there was an earlier suit in O.S.No.834 of 1990 filed by Rajammal, the mother of the plaintiffs herein and another sister Pattu before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri seeking partition and separate possession of the very same suit lands. The said suit was then transferred to the District Munsif Court at Tiruvottiyur and re-numbered as O.S.No.1031 of 1997. After trial, it was decreed and partition was granted.

12. The fourth defendant therein/the revision petitioner herein had then filed A.S.No.11 of 2006 before the Sub Court at Ponneri. The learned Sub Judge had allowed the appeal by a Judgment dated 17.12.2007 and had set aside the decree of the Trial Court.

13. The plaintiffs in the suit then filed S.A.No.1690 of 2008 before this Court. That Second Appeal was also dismissed by a judgment dated 18.12.2013, confirming the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.1031 of 1987. A further Special Leave to Appeal had been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 17.10.2014.

14. It was therefore claimed that since the rights