The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and the power of the Court to strike off pleadings that are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 22.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S. No.1107 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli and further allow the I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 by rejecting the plaint in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the order, dated 22.11.2018 in I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court below.

3. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 for the following reliefs:

(i) for permanently restrain the defendants, men, agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit A, B, C, D Lane as its absolute owner subject to the limited right of easement of user and enjoyment of the said suit lane by the 1st defendant of user and enjoyment of the said suit lane by the 1st defendant to his property situated in T.S.No. 77/2 and 78 part to an extent of 266.375 sq.ft. Only for his ingress and egress over the suit lane to have access to the big bazar street and to re-pass to his property in T.S.No.77/2 and 78 part.

(ii).To further permanently restrain the defendant, men and agent from in any manner elongating the said suit A, B, C, D lane further to the west of point C and D by break opening the western boundary north-south compound wall with a view to use the suit ABCD wall to the illegally constructed and stealthily operated bar in T.S.76/1 and 76/2”.

4. The revision petitioner/1st defendant herein has filed a petition in I.A.No.95 of 2018, under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, for rejection of plaint on the ground that already A, B, C, D lane is declared as a common pathway between one of the plaintiff and vendor of this defendant. It was also confirmed by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.25 of 1997. No second appeal was filed. The said petition was also dismissed on 22.11.2018. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. So, the present suit is hit by Res judicata.

6. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.

7. This Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the Court below has not at all considered the earlier suit in O.S.No.1130 of 1996 filed by the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent for declaration and injunction was dismissed. No rights will accrue on the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to make any other claim in respect of the very same ABCD suit lane. The Court below while answering the issue in O.S.No.1130 of 1996 has categorically held that the suit ABCD lane is a common lane, does not belong to the 1st respondent and the father of the 2nd respondent. No restricted right was given in the said decree as alleged by the respondent Nos.1 & 2. When the rights of the parties are crystalised and the same is confirmed by the competent courts the vexatious suit if filed is to be nipped in the bud and if it is taken on file the same is liable to be rejected. When the plaint apparently discloses the decree in O.S.No.1130 of 1996 the bogus claim of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 ought not to have entertained and the lower court ought to have rejected the plaint in O.S.No.1107 of 2017. The cause of action alleged is only an illusion and the suit in O.S.No.1130 of 2017 is also liable to be dismissed by exercising the power under Order X of Civil Procedure Code.

8. The plaintiff has stated that the 1st defendant had given only easementary rights in the suit lane. The trial Court has also wrongly construed the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.1130 of 1996.

9. In O.S.No.1130 of