A suit lacking a valid cause of action constitutes an abuse of process of law and is liable to be struck off to serve justice and maintain judicial efficiency.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. This civil revision petition seeks to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.138 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

2. The revision petitioner is the 1^st defendant in the suit and the respondents 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs while the respondents 6 to 12 are the defendants 2 to 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this proceeding will hereinafter be referred as per their array in the suit.

3. The suit in O.S.No.138 of 2023 has been filed for a decree and judgment of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the 1^st defendant, their agents, representatives or any one else claiming on behalf of them from encumbering, alienating and from dealing with the suit schedule mentioned property in any manner without the consent of the plaintiffs.

4. The 1^st defendant's case is that :

(i) the suit is nothing but a frivolous and vexatious one at the behest of one A.R. Sridharan, who had lost his legal battle before this court in common order dated 27.04.2023 made in W.P.Nos.7735, 11186 and 11408 of 2023 and order dated 09.09.2022 made in W.P.Nos.32535 of 2019, 3678 and 4148 of 2021, 488 and 7447 of 2022.

(ii) The said A.R.Sridharan, who was working as a Village Administrative Assistant (VAO), got dismissed from service on 20.12.2019. He had created certain documents in favour of some third parties.

(iii) The suit properties were originally purchased under five different sale deeds dated 23.02.1948, 13.10.1948, 17.01.1950, 31.01.1950 and 15.02.1950 by the 4^th defendant. Those properties were subsequently given as security for the loan availed by M/s.Rukmani Mills Limited at Madurai. The 2^nd defendant-State Bank of India (SBI) was the mortgagee. As the loan amount had not been paid by the mortgagor, the 2^nd defendant (SBI) brought those properties for public auction. The 1^st defendant bidder was declared as successful bidder in the 14^th e-auction held on 28.02.2017. Accordingly, the 2^nd respondent-SBI had issued a certificate dated 29.04.2017 in favour of the 1^st defendant. The said sale certificate was registered on 01.12.2022. Though an extent of 8.26 Acres of land comprised in T.S.No.282 (old Paimash Nos.240, 241, 242, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 737, 854 & 855) with assigned Survey Field No.17/1, situated at Adambakkam Village, Alandur Taluk, was sold in public auction “as is where is” condition, only an extent of 6.65 Acres was given possession to the 1^st defendant. Accordingly, thedefendant has been in possession and enjoyment of 6.65 Acres and the entire area has been compounded with a well-built wall.

(iv) While so, at the behest of A.R.Sridharan, the present suit has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint on the ground that the institution of the suit is gross abuse of the process of law.

5. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel for Mr.P.Krishnan, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner/1^st defendant; Mr.R.Udayakumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/plaintiffs; Mr.N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the 6^th respondent/2^nd defendant; and Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General for Mr.T.Arunkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents9 to 12/defendants 5 to 8.

5.1 The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/1^st defendant would strenuously submit that:

(i) pursuant to the directions issued by this court in W.P.No.32535 of 2019, by order dated 09.09.2022, an inquiry was co