ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.19 of 2015 from the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti.

2.The Revision Petitioner contended that the respondent/defendant had originally filed a suit in O.S.No.153 of 1999 against the respondent herein for a declaration that the suit property is the absolute property of the plaintiff and for declaration to declare the rectification deed vide Doc.No.1564/1991, dated 31.05.1999, as null and void and for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the Revision Petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated

16.04.2009, and the same was confirmed in A.S.No.139 of 2009.

3.On the other hand, a suit was instituted by the respondent herein in O.S.No.19 of 2015, before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Usilampatti, where, the Revision Petitioner/plaintiff, in O.S.No.153 of 1999, was arrayed as sole defendant. The suit in O.S.No.153 of 1999 relates to 99 cents, whereas, the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2015 relates to 10 cents.

4.The Revision Petitioner contended that the respondent had filed the present suit by suppressing the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.153 of 1999, which had attained finality in A.S.No.139 of 2009 and had not mentioned anything about the filing of the suit in O.S.No.153 of 1999. By suppressing all material facts and contrary to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.153 of 1999, the respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.19 of 2015 which is nothing but of abuse of process of law. On that score, the present Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.19 of 2015.

5.Ms.J.Barathan learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the earlier suit was decreed and the rectification deed was set aside in favour of the Revision Petitioner, the further continuation of O.S.No.19 of 2015, has to be struck down. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since a categorical judgment has been delivered in O.S.No.153 of 1999 in favour of the Revision Petitioner, the further continuation of the present suit in O.S.No.

19 of 2015 is an abuse of process of Court.

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that when the suit is hit under res judicata, that cannot be over come by the respondent herein. Since the parties are one and the same and the prayer in the suits are one and the same and the relief claimed by the parties are one and the same and in view of the judgment in O.S.No.153 of 1999 in favour of the Revision Petitioner, the further continuation of O.S.No.19 of 2015 is squarely hit under principles of res judicata.

7.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R.P.(MD)No.2014 of 2024 between M.Murugan vs M.Premavathi (Died) and others, dated 19.09.2024, wherein, it had been held as follows:

“3.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2019)

9 SCC 538 (Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society) had held that wherever the proceedings are under the code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner rightly invoked the remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. It suffered dismissal. Merely because the said order was left unchallenged, the petitioner is not denuded of his right to independently seek quashing of the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is because, there is fundamental distinction between the scope of the two remedies. When the defendant invokes remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C, the Court cannot travel outside the scope of the plaint averments and the plaint documents. However, when