ORDER

The above Civil Revision Petition is preferred to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.169 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Court,

Pudhukottai.

2. According to the revision petitioners, the suit properties were purchased by the 2nd petitioner out of his own income in the name of his father, who is the 1st petitioner herein and in the name of the 2nd petitioner himself. However, the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.169 of 2022 before the Additional District Court, Pudhukottai for partition, which is clearly an abuse of process of law and filed only for the purpose of harassing the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff in the suit has made false averments and allegations by suppressing the material facts. The respondent/plaintiff never contributed funds for purchasing the suit properties. He had made contradictory statements in the plaint by stating that the suit properties are the ancestral properties but in another place he had stated that the suit properties are jointly purchased by them. If the respondent/plaintiff has contributed funds for purchasing the suit properties, he would not have allowed to purchase them in the name of the petitioners herein, when he was very much available in the native place during the purchase of the suit properties. The respondent/plaintiff never made any objection for purchasing properties in the name of the petitioners and also at the time of transfer of pattas. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the above suit is filed with ulterior motive and therefore, the same shall be struck off.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice, the revision petitioners herein are entitled to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint at earliest in order to prevent the time of public and the Court being wasted. Since the present suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was clearly abuse of process of law, the plaint is liable to be struck off.

4. To support his contention he has relied upon the following decisions reported in

1.M.Devaprakash Vs. P.P.Devaraj [2022 (3) CTC 154]

2.N.A.Chinnasamy Vs. S. Vellingirinathan [2013 (6) CTC 809]

3.Raahul Foundations Private Ltd. Vs. S.Chandrababu

[2019 (3) MLJ 321]

4.Mani @ Nagamani Vs. P.Ramakrishnan [(2018) 4 MLJ 182]

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil procedure and the forum is the Civil Court, the availability of a remedy is under the CPC. This Court cannot entertain the revision petition to strike off the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that when there is a law providing remedy by filing a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint, this Civil Revision Petition could not be entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials on record.

7. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.169

of 2022 claiming 1/5th share in the suit properties. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the 1st defendant and the defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters of the 1st defendant. The suit properties are the joint family properties and till date no partition was effected among the family members. Since the defendants were attempting to alienate the suit properties without allotting the share of the plaintiff, he was constrained to file the above suit for partition.

8. Per contra, the petitioners/defendants would submit that the suit properties were purchased by the 2nd petitioner/2nd defendant out of his own income in the name of his father and in his name. The respondent/plaintiff did not contribute any