The court can strike off a plaint as an abuse of process when it constitutes re-litigation of previously settled matters, thereby preventing unnecessary litigation.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.202 of 2024 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sirkali, and also for imposing exemplary costs on the respondents.

2. I have heard Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.M.Naveen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The respondents, despite service of notices in the revision petition, have not chosen to appear either in person or through any counsel. I have gone through the records produced before me by way of typed set of papers.

3. Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel on record for the petitioner would contend that the suit is an abuse of process of law and a clear attempt in re-litigation. He would invite my attention to the earlier civil proceedings which commenced in the year 2008 and came to attain finality before this Court on 20.12.2023 in S.A.No.274 of 2021. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the 2^nd respondent was party to the earlier proceedings upto this Court and in order to hoodwink the Court and get over adverse concurrent verdicts, the 2^nd respondent has joined hands with the 1^st respondent and initiated a suit in O.S.No.202 of 2024 before the Sub-Court, Sirkali. The learned Senior Counsel would also bring to my notice the orders passed by this Court in Cont.P.No.2454 of 2024, where this Court gave protection to the petitioner's possession of the suit property. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the all earlier judgments and decrees ended in favour of the revision petitioner and the 1^st respondent is only a puppet at the hands of the 2^nd respondent and the suit is not only a clear abuse but also vexatious, collusive and liable to be struck off.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the revision petitioner, who is aged 80 years, is suffering from various physical ailments and the present suit filed by the 1^st respondent arraying the revision petitioner as the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd respondent as the 2^nd defendant has caused further mental agony to the revision petitioner. To add salt to injury, despite having filed the suit, it is only the revision petitioner who has been diligently appearing before this Court and the 2^nd respondent has chosen to remain ex-parte and neither the 1^st respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit nor his counsel have been appearing before the Trial Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on the following decisions:

1. N.Babu Vs. S.Shanmugam ( 2013 (1) CTC 180 ).

2.Surya Devi Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Others ( (2003) 6 SCC 675 ).

3.Ranipet Municipality Rep. by its Corner & Special Officer, Ranipet Vs.M.Shamsheerkan ( 1998 (1) CTC 66 ).

4.N.A.Chinnasamy & Another Vs. S.Vellingirinathan ( 2013 (6) CTC 809 ).

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.T.P.Manoharan. I have also gone through the judgments that have been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel in support of his contentions.

7. O.S.No.202 of 2024 has been filed by the 1^st respondent, seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the 1^st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, except by due process of law. Even at the outset, it is to be noted that no relief is sought for against the 2^nd respondent, who has been arrayed as