ORDER :

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decree dated 03.12.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2021 in O.S.No.30 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District Munsiff, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.)

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal order of the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, seeking rejection of the plaint.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the Will dated 03.01.2014 executed in favour of the petitioner herein by one George A.Raja is null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and administration of the suit property.

3. The petitioner herein earlier filed a petition in I.A.No.582 of 2018, for rejection of the plaint, wherein he sought for rejection of plaint on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff society had already become defunct and hence it cannot maintain the suit. The said application was dismissed. Challenging the same, revision was filed before this Court in C.R.P.No.65 of 2020 and the same was dismissed on the ground that whether the respondent Society had become defunct or not is a matter for evidence. Thereafter, the present petitioner has filed this present Revision Petition for the very same relief in I.A.No.1 of 2021. In the present petition, the petitioner had averred that the Will sought to be declared as null and void speaks about the Trusteeship of the petitioner in respect of the Trust and hence the suit filed by the respondent without seeking leave of the Court under Section 92 of C.P.C., was not maintainable. The Court below dismissed the said petition and aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner has come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1917 of 2020 [Ashok Kumar Gupta and another Vs. M/s.Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust and Others] submitted that if the averments found in the plaint is taken as whole, it can be safely concluded that the suit is relating to the administration of the Trust and hence, it ought to have been filed after getting leave of the Court under Section 92 of C.P.C., Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in case, the plaintiff has presented the suit under section 92 of C.P.C., the learned District Munsif will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. Heard Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Chelladurai Caldwell, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Earlier, the Revision Petitioner filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent Society had become defunct and hence the suit was not maintainable. That application was dismissed by the trial court and the said order was confirmed by this Court. This is the second application filed by the Revision Petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the respondent should have presented the petition under Section 92 C.P.C., seeking leave of the Court. This point was available to the petitioner even when he filed the earlier petition for rejection of the plaint. The petitioner is not entitled to raise new pleas in instalments by filing second petition for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.,

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the Interlocutory Application is concerned, there is no question of resjudicata and hence the reasonings given by the trial Judge for rejecting the second application for rejection of plaint on the ground of resjudicata is wrong. Though doctrine of resjudicata is not applicable to the Interlocutory Applications, the petitioner cannot be permitted to file petition to reject the plaint in instalments by raising new plea. Such a course will have an undesirable