SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
A.V.S. Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
Kolanji @ C. Chandramohan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. T.P. Manoharan, Senior Counsel for Mr. T.M. Naveen

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court struck off the plaint in O.S.No.202 of 2024 as an abuse of process and re-litigation, under Article 227 (referenced as the supervisory power to prevent abuse) (!) . - Prior judgments (O.S.205 of 2001, A.S.No.22 of 2011, and S.A.No.274 of 2021) established the revision petitioner’s possession; the present suit was deemed a vexatious re-litigation by the 2nd respondent’s collusive setup (!) (!) (!) . - The plaint was found to be a clear attempt to relitigate and abuse judicial process, lacking a valid cause of action against the 2nd respondent; the 1st respondent cannot claim independent rights beyond the 2nd respondent’s status (!) (!) (!) . - The court cited and applied precedents (N. Babu, Surya Devi Rai, KK Modi, Ranipet Municipality, N.A. Chinnasamy) to justify using Article 227 to strike down a vexatious, collusive re-litigation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The order explicitly states there shall be no order as to costs and that connected CMP is closed; the revision petition is allowed and the plaint is struck off (!) .

How to strike off a plaint as abuse of process under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in a re-litigation scenario?

What is the standard for determining re-litigation and abuse of process in a suit where prior judgments established possession?

What are the consequences of striking off the plaint in a civil revision petition under Article 227?


Table of Content
1. introduction of the petition and service status. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claim of abuse of process and relitigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. background of the main suit and property histories. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11)
4. observations on the lack of a valid cause of action. (Para 10 , 12 , 18)
5. court's authority to strike off plaint for relitigation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. assessment of the abuse of the court by relitigation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
7. conclusion and order to strike off plaint. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

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 co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top