ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition arises at the instance of the 1st defendant.

2. O.S.No.20 of 2023 is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, etc., from putting up a compound wall by encroaching the suit schedule property. The suit has totally 4 items, individually described. The plaintiffs claim that the property was purchased by the 1st plaintiff on 20.02.2006, the 2nd plaintiff purchased the property on 07.02.2007, the 3rd plaintiff purchased the property on 03.07.1990 and the 4th plaintiff purchased the property on

13.06.2007.

3. It is the plea of the plaintiffs that prior to their purchase, the property had been owned by one Lakshmipatty, who had developed the property by creating an approved layout under the name and style of “Sri Vinayaka Nagar”. After having developed the layout, he had sold away the specified portions of the layout to the plaintiffs by way of aforesaid sale deeds. The plaintiffs would further plead that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit property.

4. According to the plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant is a Politician who attempted to encroach into the plots in the approved layout. Therefore, the plaintiffs lodged a Police complaint with the Jurisdictional Police Station, namely, Venkatamangalam Police Station. The Police refused to take action, since the 2nd defendant is an influential person. The plaint proceeds, being left with no other alternative, the plaintiffs have come forward with the suit for permanent injunction.

5. On being served with the summons, the 1st defendant took out an application for rejection of the plaint.

6. According to him, the subject matter of the suit had already been dealt with by the Court on two occasions, namely, (i)His mother, Tmt.Nesamani had presented the suit in O.S.No.430 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu.

and ;

(ii)Mariappan, the father of the 1st defendant filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in O.S.No.3 of

2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu.

7. The 1st defendant would plead that the first suit ended in a decree in favour of his mother on 29.01.1991 and the second suit was decreed in favour of his father on 18.06.2007. Therefore, the 1st defendant would plead that the present suit is a classic case of re-

litigation and also hit by principles of res judicata. On these pleas, he would move an application for rejection of plaint. This application was received in I.A.No.3 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu.

8. The learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, issued notice to the respondents / plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a detailed counter pleading that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable since the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the rejection of the plaint application have to be proved only at the time of trial. They would also plead that the said Lakshmipatty had developed the property as early as in the year 1989 in L.P/DTCP.No.682/1989 and had sold away the property on the specified extents to the plaintiffs.

9. The plaintiffs would also plead that a Writ Petition had been filed in W.P.No.8078 of 2013 for a direction to the Tasildar, Guduvancherry, to identify and survey the property. They would plead that the 1st defendant is aware of the purchase of the property by the plaintiffs. They added the defendant filed an application for rejection of the plaint, in order to grab the property which had been purchased by the plaintiffs. On these ground the plaintiffs sought for dismissal of the rejection application.

10. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the matter have to be proved only at the time of trial. Therefore, dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint on

29.11.2013. Hence, the revision.

11. I heard Mr. R.Gokulakrishnan, for the civil revision petitioner and Mr. G.V.Sridharan for the respondents.

12. Mr. R.Gokulakrishn