IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a civil suit can be struck off if it constitutes an abuse of process of law, particularly when it mirrors previously adjudicated matters and lacks a valid cause of action.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for the records in O.S. No. 958 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, strike the said O.S. No. 958 of 2021.

1. The revision petition is preferred to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 958 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai.

2. According to the Revision Petitioner, the respondent has filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry in complaint No. 510 of 2019 against the petitioner. The case of the respondent in the said complaint, in a nut shell is that, the respondent filed a petition in P.O.P. No. 10/2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge of Madurai against one M.R. Pushpavalli, by stating that the present petitioner in his professional capacity as an advocate appeared for the said M.R. Pushpavalli in the said P.O.P. No. 10/2006, and that the documents were exhibited on behalf of the said M.R. Pushpavalli. It is further stated that in the said complaint that the P.O.P. No. 10/2006 was dismissed on 3.12.2007 and the revision petitioner on 16.4.2008 got return of the documents filed by his client which was marked as Exhibits R1 and R2, without giving notice to the respondent counsel. However, an endorsement of no objection for returning of the documents was made in the petition for return of documents. The said endorsement was not made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry issued notice to the present petitioner. The Petitioner also filed his comments for the said petition. Finally, the Bar council, by Resolution No. 488/2020 dated 19.12.2020, dropped the above said complaint preferred by the respondent. Against, that, the present respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 10043 of 2021 before this Court against the Secretary of the Bar council and the present petitioner as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The present petitioner entered appearance in the said writ petition, and the same is pending.

4. While matters were stated as above, the present petitioner received summons in suit in O.S. No. 958 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai, seeking a declaration that the present petitioner has committed fraud before the Court and for a relief of Compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- with interest against the petitioner. In the plaint filed in O.S. No. 958 of 2021, it is stated that the petitioner in his reply to the Bar Council has stated that the respondent had sent threatening letters to several persons and made threatening phone calls to several persons.

5. Aggrieved by the above, the revision petitioner preferred the present civil revision petition to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 958 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

6. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the suit in O.S. No. 958 of 2021 is an abuse of process of law and deserves to be struck off. He would submit that the subject matter in the present suit is the very same matter in the complaint filed by the respondent before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and the said complaint before the Bar Council was already dropped and therefore, the present suit is an abuse of process of Court and the same is liable to be struck off. The respondent against the rejection of his complaint, in Complaint No. 510 of 2019 preferred the writ petition in W.P. No. 10043 of 2021 and while the same is pending, the parallel suit is an abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the respondent while prosecuting the writ petition, the respondent was only forum shopping by filing the suit and is liable to be struck off. His further contention is that the suit is not civil in nature and the plaintiff is not entitled to get defamatory declaration against the defendant which is imper