A plaint can be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process where prior litigation involving same property and relief exists, even if the plaintiff was not party to earlier proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 49 of 2023 by the Addl. District Judge, Tindivanam arising out of trial court findings rendered in judgment and decree passed in I.A.No.520 of 2022 in O.S.No.60 of 2022 on the file of Sub-Court, Gingee, this Second Appeal was preferred by the defendant.

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

3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction not to cause interference in the enjoyment of suit property. On receipt of notice, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No. 520 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. seeking to reject the plaint as there is no cause of action. The said application was contested by the plaintiff, inspite of that, it was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff suppressed the earlier suit proceedings in respect of the suit property, which was filed by the plaintiff's father, however for the same relief, those suits were already disposed in favour of defendant. But suppressing all the earlier proceedings, he filed the present suit without any cause of action. Accordingly, on the ground of suppression of facts as well as on the ground of no cause of action, the application was allowed and the suit was rejected. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No. 49 of 2023 before the II Addl. District Judge, Tindivanam and the same was also dismissed by confirming the findings of the trial court holding that the documents produced by the defendant would clearly evolves earlier suit proceedings in respect of suit property with the same prayer. Though it was initiated by the plaintiff's father, but based on the settlement deed executed by his father, now the plaintiff claimed right over the suit property. Therefore, the earlier suit proceedings would bind him, but suppressing all the earlier suit proceedings, the present suit was filed, as such have no cause of action. Accordingly, the first appellate judge dismissed the said appeal suit holding that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law. Challenging the concurrent findings of courts below, now the plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal by raising the following grounds for consideration :-

(a)The appellate court and the trial court failed to appreciate the totality of the circumstances that the appellant herein has filed the suit for declaration and injunction as the respondent/defendant attempted to interfere with the suit schedule property. The lower court without considering the counter filed in I.A.No.520 of 2022 seeking to reject the plaint, ordered the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and the lower appellate court has also confirmed the fair and decreetal order without appreciating the appellant contention.

(b) The courts below failed to consider the fact that the appellant/plaintiff herein is not a party to any of the earlier proceedings as alleged by the respondent/defendant and the same are not binding on him to hold the title and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

(c)The court below also failed to take into account the prayer in I.A.No.2 of 2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 seeking permission to produce additional documents including the subsequent sale deed made by the defendants, pending the suit and the same are in collusion among the defendants to defeat the interest of appellant herein.

(d) The courts below also failed to consider the cause of action, parties to the proceedings and the schedule of properties are totally different in the previous suits and therefore the order passed in I.A.No.520 of 2022 in O.S.No.