1. The defendants 1 to 6 have taken out an application invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of Constitution of India, seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Avanthika Vasu and Ms.Danyuktaa Shruti, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit is an abuse of process of law and having been a party to earlier partition suit proceedings, the respondents have chosen to file a fresh suit, despite final decree having been passed in the suit for partition, claiming that they are co - sharers and dwellers, carrying out agricultural activities in the suit property and that their possession should be protected, by grant of permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioners from in any manner obstructing, disturbing or dispossessing the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Counsel would take me through the suit for partition, the preliminary decree passed therein, the final decree passed on 26.10.2016 and subsequently mutation of revenue records pursuant to the said final decree proceedings. He would further submit that the First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.12 of 2017 was also dismissed on 05.11.2024 by the III Additional District Court, Erode and suppressing all these material facts, the plaint has been filed as though the plaintiffs are still co - sharers. He would therefore state that the suit is ex facie illegal and a gross abuse of process of law. He would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Jayaseelan v. Sekar (Died) and others reported in 2022 (3) CTC 383 and Tripower Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Selvam Aruldoss, reported in 2025 (1) CTC 58, in support of his contentions.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs would state that the extraordinary power under Art.227 of Constitution of India cannot be used in a routine manner and the alternate remedy by way of seeking relief under Order VII R.11 of CPC is available to the revision petitioners, and without resorting to the same, directly approaching this Court and seeking striking off the pleadings under Art.227 of Constitution of India is not permissible.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Annadurai v. Santhanakrishnan and others, in C.R.P(MD) No.2635 of 2023 dated 20.06.2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and others, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 538, held that the High Court as not only a measure of self imposition, but also a matter of discipline, shall not entertain revisions where specific remedy is available under the CPC.

6. Following the ratio laid down in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai's case, this Court in Annadurai's case, held that directly approaching the High Court under Art.227 of Constitution of India to strike off the plaint would not be proper and granting liberty to file an application under Order VII R.11 of CPC, the revision came to be dismissed.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. There is merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that after suffering a final decree in a suit for partition, the respondents have approached the Court, setting out a cause of action as if they are co - owners and they are entitled to protection. This Court, in Tripower Enterprises's case and Jayaseelan's case referred herein supra, held that if the Court is able to come to a conclusion that the suit is a clear abuse of process of law, then the plaint can be struck off. The case on which relianc