The court emphasized that for striking off a plaint, clear evidence of res judicata or abuse of legal process is required, necessitating trials for proper adjudication.

ORDER

The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.116 of 2023 before the learned District Munsif, Senthamangalam are the revision petitioners seeking to strike off the plaint in the said suit on the ground of re-litigation.

2. I have heard Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for the contesting first respondent/plaintiff.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Mr.S.P.Chockalingam would contend that the present suit in O.S. No.116 of 2023 is on the same lines of the earlier suit in O.S. No.474 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal. The earlier suit in O.S. No.474 of 1996 attained finality before the Subordinate Court, Namakkal in First Appeal proceedings and despite the same, the present suit has been filed before the learned District Munsif, Senthamangalam.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, would take me through the plaint in the earlier suit as well as the present suit to contend that the present suit is clearly an abuse of process of law and attempt at re-litigation which should never be entertained by this Court and therefore, he seeks interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also draw my specific attention to the suit plans in both the suits, that is the present suit as well as in the earlier suit, to fortify his contention that the plaintiff is re-agitating the very same disputes that have already attained finality.

6.In support of the contentions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Mani and Ors Vs. P.Ramakrishnan , reported in MANU/TN/2445/2018;

(ii) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others , reported in Manu/SC/0559/2003;

(iii) M.Devaprakash Vs. P.P.Devaraj and Ors , reported in Manu/TN/1976/2022; and (iv) R.Gopalakrishnan and Others Vs. K.Mani , reported in Manu/TN/0150/2019.

7. Per contra, Mr.P.Mathivanan, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , to strike off the plaint should not be entertained as it would deprive the first respondent/plaintiff of his legitimate rights. He would further state that the petitioners would have to approach the Trial Court for appropriate relief, instead of directly approaching the Article under 227 of the .

8. In support of the contentions of the learned counsel for the first respondent has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(i) Annadurai Vs. Santhanakrishnan , in CRP. (MD). No.2635 of 2023 dated 20.06.2024;

(ii) Shanmugam and others Vs. Chief Secretary/Chairman, Commercial Tax Department , and others, in CRP. No.852 of 2021, dated 24.01.2022;

(iii) Pandurangan Vs. T.Jayarama Chettiar and Another, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1425;

(iv) Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hamant Vithal Kamat and others, reported in (2021) 9 SCC 99;

(v) Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and others, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 ;

(vi) Soumitra Kumar Sen Vs. Shyamal Kumar Sen and Others, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 644;

(vii) Kandasamy Vs. K.Duraisamy and others, in CRP. (MD). No.610 of 2022 dated 20.06.2024.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned