IMPORTANT POINT
A party cannot re-litigate issues that have been previously adjudicated, as this constitutes an abuse of the court's process, particularly when the previous suit was dismissed and the current suit seeks to address the same claims.

ORDER :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruneveli.

A third party to O.S.No.41 of 2017 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli has filed the above revision petition seeking to strike off the plaint on the ground of re-litigation amounting to abuse of process of Court.

(A) Facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows:

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed the above suit as against the private person one K.R.Pauldurai who is the first defendant and against the revenue and police officials who are arrayed as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit.

3. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they belong to Senthikantha Nadar Vagaiyara and the suit schedule properties are the absolute properties of the said Vagaiyara. However, the defendants are attempting to disturb their possession. Hence, they have filed the suit for permanent injunction that the defendants should not interfere in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiffs as well as Senthikantha Nadar Vagaiyara. The plaintiffs have further prayed that the official defendants should not permit any one other than Senthikantha Nadar Vagaiyara to conduct any function or permit for parking of the vehicles in the schedule property.

4. Pending suit, the plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.124 of 2017 seeking interim injunction that the defendants or their agents should not disturb their possession or any permission should be granted to any one to conduct any meeting or function in the suit schedule properties. The said application was allowed on 29.04.2017. The present revision petition has been filed by the third party on 21.02.2018 alleging that the present suit is nothing but re-litigation amounting to abuse of process of Court.

(B). Contentions of the counsels:

5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, one R.Arumugam had made an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi seeking mutation of revenue records from the name of Mupidathi Temple to the name of A.Mupidathi Ammal. The temple officials have strongly objected for the said mutation and ultimately the request of the said Arumugam was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi on 28.02.1999. Appeal was filed by the said Arumugam before the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli and the said appeal also came to be rejected on 03.05.1999.

6. Challenging the said rejection order, the said Arumugam had filed W.P.No.10620 of 1999 before the Principal Seat. This Court by way of a detailed order, had confirmed the fact that the suit schedule properties belong to Keezhapavoor Hindu Nadar Community and they are in administration of Muppidathi Amman Temple and proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the said R.Arumugam to approach the competent Civil Court if he claims any right over the suit schedule property.

7. The said Arumugam had filed O.S.No.339 of 2003 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi in his personal capacity and also as representative of Senthikantha Nadar family in Keezhapavoor for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession for the same schedule properties. In the said suit, Keezhapavoor Hindu Nadar community was made as a party. The said suit was dismissed on 21.12.2004. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.15 of 2005 and the same was dismissed for default on 22.09.2005. Therefore, the exclusive claim made by Senthikantha Nadar Vagaiyara over the suit schedule property has been rejected by the civil Court and it has attained finality. Suppressing the said fact, the present suit has been filed by two plaintiffs claiming permanent injunction not only for themselves, but also for Senthikantha Nadar famil