C.R.P.No.3895 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.3895 of 2022

and

C.M.P.No.20401 of 2022

1.K.Antonisamy

2.A.Lency Suganthi Mary

... Petitioners

Vs.

S.Velusamy

... Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,

pleased to set aside the decreetal and fair order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the

learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupur in I.A.No.809 of 2019 in

O.S.No.197 of 2019 dated 09.09.2022 and consequently reject the plaint in

O.S.No.197 of 2019.

For Petitioners : M/s.T.Sunderanathan

For Respondents : No Appearance

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

Court below dismissing petition filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking to

reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

________

Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3895 of 2022

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for injunction restraining the

petitioners/defendants from interfering with his right to worship the suit temple

more particularly by demolishing, damaging the temple. The respondent also

sought for injunction restraining petitioners from cutting down the trees in the suit

properties. He also sought for injunction regarding use of PAP Channel and PAP

for water irrigation. The respondent also prayed for injunction restraining the

petitioners from interfering with his common right of user and enjoyment over the

suit properties.

3. The defendants filed I.A.No.809 of 2019 seeking to reject the plaint in

O.S.No.197 of 2019. In the affidavit filed in the support of the said petition, the

petitioners had averred that earlier father of the respondent/plaintiff namely

Mr.Subbaraya Goundar filed a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.NO.196 of

1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur and the said suit was decreed

by declaring 1/3^rd right to the Mr.Subbaraya Goundar over the common well and

channel situated at S.F.No.148 to pump out water by electric motor pump to

irrigate in S.F.No.147. According to the petitioners, the said suit was suppressed

by the respondent while filing the present suit. Therefore, it will amount to abuse

________

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3895 of 2022

of process of law and Court. It is stated that the present suit is a re-litigation on the

part of the respondent. The revision petitioners also raised points of resjudicata.

The petitioner has also averred in the affidavit that respondent does not disclose the

cause of action and the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. The

Court below after considering rival submissions of both the parties came to the

conclusion that the relief sought for in the present suit, namely injunction

restraining the petitioners from interfering with the respondent's right to worship in

the suit temple. The said relief was not at all prayed for in a suit filed by the father

of the respondent. Therefore, the plea of suppression of material fact, re-litigation

etc., raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

4. As far as the question of resjudicata is concerned, the same shall be

considered at the time of the final disposal by perusing documents filed by the

revision petitioners. Therefore, the petition filed by the revision petitioners was

dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same petitioners are before this

Court by way of revision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly attacked the order

impugned in the revision on the ground that the Court failed to consider the points

________

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3895 of 2022

raised by the petitioners in support of the prayer for rejection of the plaint name