SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
A.Mahendran – Appellant
Versus
M.V.Arul – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.P.Chockalingam
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Mathivanan

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 Cons

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top