ORDER

The defendant in O.S. No. 254 of 2020 (O.S.No.104 of 2016) on the file of the District Munsif Court, Komarapalayam has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The respondent herein has filed the aforesaid suit praying to grant permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/defendant, his men, servants, agents or any persons claiming under him from in any manner disturbing or preventing him from using “ABC” portion of the suit “ABCDE” cart tract which is the only ingress and egress to reach the plaintiff's agricultural land comprising in S.F.No.172/1E.

3. On notice in the suit, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed a written statement repudiating the plaint averments. Notwithstanding the filing of the written statement, the defendant/revision petitioner has also filed the instant interlocutory application in I.A. No. 5 of 2020 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that there is no cause of action arise for the plaintiff to file the instant suit and that the present suit is nothing short an abuse of process of law.

4. In the application in I.A.No.5 of 2020, it was mainly contented by the defendant that in connection with the very same dispute already one Periyasami has filed a suit in O.S. No. 675 of 1982 before the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode and obtained a decree thereof. The litigation reached this Court in Second Appeal No. 1592 of 1988 and the same was partly allowed by this Court on 11.06.2002. Pursuant to the judgement passed by this Court in S.A. No. 1592 of 1988 dated 11.06.2002, the plaintiff herein has purchased the property in question from the above said Periyasami on 11.03.2005. Thus, the issues involved in the present suit have already been adjudicated by this Court in S.A.No.1592 of 1988. While so, in connection with the same cause of action, the instant suit in O.S.No.254 of 2020 has been filed and therefore, the present suit is hit by the principals of res-judicata. According to the defendant/revision petitioner, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. The present suit is nothing short an abuse of process of law. While so, the defendant need not undergo the ordeal of lengthy trial in the present suit. When the issues arises for consideration in the suit have already been adjudicated, a further adjudication at the instance of the plaintiff is unnecessary. Therefore, the defendant has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

5. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.5 of

2020 admitting that earlier the said Periyasami has filed the suit in O.S.No.675 of 1982 for bare injunction again the defendant/revision petitioner. As against the decree passed in O.S.No. 675 of 1982, A.S. No.83 of 1985 has been filed and it was dismissed. As against the same, her vendor/ Periyasami has filed the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1592 of 1988 before this Court and it was partly allowed. In the judgement and decree passed by this Court in S.A.No.1592 of

1988, it was specifically held that the plaintiff's vendor, viz., the said Periyasami is having a right over 11 feet pathway. Thereafter, the said Periyasami has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 11.03.2005. In the sale deed, it was specifically stated that the right of pathway in the land measuring 11 feet has been conveyed to the plaintiff herein. Even otherwise, 10 years after the sale deed dated 11.03.2005 has been executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, the defendant herein attempted to interfere with her possession, therefore, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff. The cause of action arise for institution of the present suit has nothing to do with the earlier suit filed by her vendor/Periyasami in O.S.No.675 of 1982 which culminated in the judgement and decree dated 11.06.2002 passed in S.A.No.1592 of 1988. The cause of action arise in the present suit is different and distinct and it require an