The exercise of power under Article 227 to strike off a plaint requires clear evidence of abuse of process, reserving trial courts for factual determinations.

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking orders to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.375 of 2022, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents 2 and 3 through their Power Agent have filed the above suit seeking declaration that the pathway shown as ABCD in the layout plan as well as in the rough plan is a public pathway and the plaintiff has got unfetted right to pass and repass through ABCD from Thanjavur main road on the North to the suit property on the South to and fro as of right and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men from disturbing the plaintiffs' right of access to pass through ABCD lane to and fro either by obstructing the pathway or in any manner whatsoever and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 and 2 to remove all obstructions placed in the ABCD pathway, which is nothing but a continuous nuisance, failing which to have the same done through process of Court.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have purchased their property vide sale deed dated 04.06.2010, that they have executed a power of attorney in favour of Crown Property Developers, a registered partnership firm, that the suit property which was purchased as agricultural land has got right of access for all purposes on their northern side through Survey No.2/3A part (old) and new Survey No.2/3B2 in Varaganeri Village, Tiruchirappalli East Taluk in order to have access to the Thanjavur road to and fro, that the property situated in northern side was owned by one Savarinathan and he has plotted out his land and also obtained permission from the Director of Town and Country Planning, that the pathway shown as ABCD is the only access for the plaintiffs to reach the main road to and fro for all purposes and if that pathway is closed, the suit property will become land locked, that the owner of the northern side property seemed to have executed a Will in favour of his children, that he has bequeathed unsold plots in favour of his two daughters vide Will dated 29.09.1977, that the said Will was executed by the original owner as per the approved layout plan in favour of his two daughters, that the first daughter who got the plots under the said Will sold out the same to the third party vide sale deed dated 10.12.1981 by quoting the approved lay out plan and the plot numbers, that the second daughter – Mrs.Philomina Thilak who got plots Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 under the said approved layout, sold out the same by suppressing the Will and approved layout, by including the space left out for pathway in North to South direction and as well as the space earmarked for playground, that the same was purchased by Smt.Josephine Lusi and she had executed a general power of attorney along with Joseph Selvam in favour of one Balakrishnan on 16.04.2002, that the said Power of Attorney Agent sold an extent of 7100 sqft out of 0.34 Acres well within specified boundaries by suppressing the plot numbers and the pathways, playground covered under the lay out to the defendants 1 and 2 on 30.06.2005, that the defendants 1 and 2 started making attempts to block the right of access to the plaintiffs to reach Thanjavur road to and fro from the suit property, that the plaintiffs gave a complaint before the District Collector, who in turn forwarded the same to the Member Secretary, Local Planning Authority, Tiruchirapalli, who in turn directed the Commissioner of City Corporation to remove the encroachment committed in the pathways covered under the layout as well as the children playground on 30.01.2016, that the said encroachments were not cleared and the plaintiffs find it very difficult to reach the Thanjavur main road, that the defendants have no right to block the right of access through ABCD, but they are dirturbing the plaintiffs right to access by block