The rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC should solely rely on plaint averments, excluding external documents, and res judicata applies only if the earlier suit concluded after full trial.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendants in O.S.No.180 of 2018 challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.992 of 2018 in O.S.No.180 of 2018 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur.

2.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners had been the Defendants 1 to 3 in the earlier suit in O.S.No.835 of 2011 filed by the then President of the Medavakkam Panchayat for declaration to declare that the suit property is 16 feet Road and consequential injunction restraining the Defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 16 feet wide pathway. After the Panchayat election, the said President was defeated. Therefore, he could not proceed with the case. In the place of the said President, as Plaintiff, Medavakkam Panchayat, Represented by the Block Development Officer, Chitlapakkam, had filed I.A.No.449 of 2017 in O.S.No.835 of 2011 to implead himself as Plaintiff to proceed further with the suit. After due enquiry, the said petition was dismissed. Against which, the Block Development Officer, Chitlapakkam had not filed any Appeal or Revision. Therefore, the said order had attained finality.

3.Thereafter, Ishwariya Homes Association – Medavakkam, Represented by its President had filed I.A.No.704 of 2017 in O.S.No.835 of 2011 to implead them as Plaintiff to proceed with the suit in O.S.No.835 of 2011. After due enquiry, the said petition was also dismissed. Against which, Ishwariya Homes Association – Medavakkam had not filed any Appeal or Revision. Therefore, the said order had also attained finality. While so, the present suit in O.S.No.180 of 2018 is filed by the Medavakkam Ishwarya Homes Apartment Owner's Association, Represented by its President, Mr.S.Rajavel, S/o.Mr.Siva Sankaran, Having office at No.12, Ishwarya Homes Apartment, Mambakkam Main Road, Medavakkam, Chennai – 600 100. The cause of action is of imaginary cause of action. The averments in the plaint in O.S.No.835 of 2011 and O.S.No.180 of 2018 are similar. The Defendants are the same. Therefore, the plaint is to be rejected.

4.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the plaint averments in O.S.No.835 of 2011 and O.S.No.180 of 2018 and also the schedule of property in O.S.No.835 of 2011 and schedule of property in O.S.No.180 of 2018. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff in O.S.No.835 of 2011 and the Respondent in this Civil Revision Petition is the very same Counsel. Therefore, the cause of action mentioned in O.S.No.180 of 2018 is an imaginary cause of action. Whereas the cause of action in O.S.No.835 of 2011 could not be proceeded. There was no Appeal or Revision against the order dismissing Petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC filed by the Flat Owners Association in O.S.No.180 of 2018 seeking to implead themselves in the place of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.835 of 2011. While so, the very same Plaintiff had filed the present suit in O.S.No.180 of 2018. Therefore, the Petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC filed by the Defendants in O.S.No.180 of 2018 ought to have been allowed and the plaint ought to have been rejected. Instead, the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur, had dismissed the Petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of