O R D E R

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.13 of 2022 in O.S.No.1409 of 2017, on the file of V Asst. City Civil Judge, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1409 of 2017 against defendant for bare injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner interfering with his alleged possession and enjoyment of the property in T.S.No. 2/164, 2/165 in Block No.22, Urur Village, Chennai. The defendant denied the title of plaintiff contending that the vendors of the plaintiff have no right to convey the property and to that effect, already various litigations are pending between the parties. So, he filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.13 of 2022 invoking inherent powers under Sec.151 of C.P.C. seeking for dismissal of the suit, being erroneous in nature. After contest, the trial judge concludes that when the plaintiff has not made out a case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. and also there is no specific provision praying to dismiss the suit, the inherent powers under Sec.151 of C.P.C. cannot be invoked. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Challenging the said findings, the defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned senior counsel for Revision Petitioner argues that if the trial court not found any ground to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., in any event, if the trial court found that the said suit is frivolous in nature and abuse of process of law, the trial court is empowered to dismiss the suit under Sec.151 of C.P.C. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner spell over in his affidavit about the frivolous nature of the suit as well as abuse of process of court made by the plaintiff, inspite of that, the trial judge dismissed the petition erroneously. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Further, he has also argued that frivolous litigation pending between the parties at the earliest possible stage, the aggrieved party need not keep the litigation pending for several years and the case in hand, the defendant established the conduct of plaintiff that the plaintiff abused the process of court by filing frivolous applications before the trial court. But, the trial judge failed to appreciate those facts and dismissed the application, as such is totally unfair and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned senior counsel would also submit that though the direction issued by this Court to dispose of the suit within a period of four months and instead of cooperating with the trial proceedings, the plaintiff filed the following petitions only in order to drag on the proceedings :-

a) I.A.No.3 of 2019 to direct the Inspector of Police, Shastri Nagar Police Station to give police aid to implement the order of interim injunction in IA.No.4038 of 2017 dated 20.10.2017.

b) I.A.No.4 of 2021 to amend the plaint.

c) I.A.No.5 of 2021 seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner d) I.A.No.6 of 2021 to amend the plaint e) I.A.No.8 of 2021 to reopen IA.No.5 of 2021 f) I.A.No.9 of 2021 to implead POA agent of C.T.Saraswathi and Dr.Parameswaran g) I.A.No.10 of 2022 to produce partition deed dated 16.02.2015 h) I.A.No.11 of 2022 for cross examination i) and also Tr.OP.No.25 of 2022

5. Furthermore, the learned senior counsel argues that the plaintiff is not having any title over the property, but instead of approaching the court to prove his title, he filed application one after another only with an intention to harass the defendant. Hence, the Revision Petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of C.P.C. to dismiss the suit as it is frivolous one.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following authorities:

(i) Shipping Corporation of India Ltd Vs. Machado Brothers and Ors reported in (2004) 11 SCC 168

17......