CRP No. 2213 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

Civil Revision Petition No. 2213 of 2020

and

C.M.P.No.13926 of 2020

M.Ramakrishnan

.. Petitioner

Versus

Ponnammal

.. Respondent

Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 29.10.2020 made in

I.A.No.5 of 2020 in O.S.No.254 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif

Court, Komarapalayam.

For Petitioner

:

Mr. R. Marudhachalamurthy

For Respondent

:

Mr. B.S. Manikandan

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,

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 2213 of 2020

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

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 2213 of 2020

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

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No. 2213 of 2020

1988, it was specifically held that the plaintiff's vendor, viz