The Trial Court must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot reject a plaint without proper procedure and hearing, even in cases deemed vexatious.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 21, 2018 passed in A.S.No.43 of 2015 by the 'I Additional Subordinate Court, Salem' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated March 18, 2015 passed in C.F.R.No.3788 of 2015 in O.S.No. [Unnumbered] / 2015 by the ‘Principal District Munsif Court at Salem' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE

3. The Suit Property is a Government land in which 'Arulmigu Alangkottai Shri Poottu Muniappan Temple' (hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Temple') is situated. The Suit Temple is located in the North-Western portion of the bungalow of the Principal District Judge, Salem. The plaintiffs 2 to 7, with the help of residents of Ayyanthirumaligai, Pallakkadu constructed an asbestos shed and installed one Kavalkaran Statue and one Horse Statue in the Suit Temple 15 years ago. They have also erected a water tank in the Suit Temple. The Suit Temple is more than 100 years old. The 2^nd plaintiff is the Poosari of the Suit Temple who has been performing poojas every day. Public at large numbers are worshipping the Suit Temple every day. Every year, in the month of Aadi, festival is being celebrated in a great manner by the devotees and villagers. Aadi month festival is celebrated in the Suit Temple with immense devotion and enthusiasm by the villagers and devotees. The plaintiffs are managing the affairs of the Suit Temple for all these years without any hindrance.

3.1. While so, on February 13, 2015 the defendants threatened the 2^nd plaintiff to remove the Statues from the Suit Property, failing which, they would remove the Statues by force. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the Suit, in a representative capacity for themselves as well as on behalf of the villagers, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the Suit Property without due process of law, and permanent injunction not to demolish the Statues and other constructions put up in the Suit Property without due process of law.

TRIAL COURT

4. Initially, the plaint was filed on March 11, 2015 and the same was returned. Thereafter, it was represented before the Trial Court on the very next day. The Trial Court, after perusing the plaint, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have suppressed the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.1165 of 2010 dealing with the very same subject matter. The said Suit was filed in a representative capacity and the same was dismissed on March 25, 2013. No appeal has been preferred against the dismissal of the said Suit and the same has attained finality. Though the learned Counsel [who appeared before the Trial Court for the plaintiffs] sought time to circulate relevant decisions of this Court for taking the Suit on file, on the next day, it was represented that the plaintiffs are going to not press the Suit, and there was no appearance / representation on the plaintiffs’ side thereafter. Hence, the Trial Court rejected the plaint stating that the plaintiffs have suppressed the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.1165 of 2010 which deal with the subject matter of the present Suit and hence, the present Suit is barred by principles of res judicata.

FIRST APPELLATE COURT

5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2015 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, concurred with the Trial Court's Judgment and Decree and dismissed the appeal by observing that the Suit is an abuse of process of Court.

SECOND APPEAL

6. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal, which was admitted on November 30, 2018 on the following substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below erred in rejecti