Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Thambiannan – Appellant
Versus
M. Pachaiannan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court order rejecting plaint dismissal application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prior partition decree bars new injunction suit as abuse of process. (Para 3) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.38 of 2023 by the learned District Munsif, Mettur, the Revision Petitioners/defendants preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2.Despite service of notice, there is no representation on the side of respondent.
3.Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners/defendants filed application under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint stating that the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is a clear abuse of process of law and already in the suit schedule, the ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to him as per the final decree passed in O.S.No. 36 of 2003 and also contended that in that final decree proceedings, ‘B’ schedule was allotted to one Sellammal and ‘C’ schedule was allotted to the 1st revision petitioner/defendant. The said Sellammal had sold the property to the 2nd revision petitioner/defendant through a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2005. Therefore, in respect of ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, the same were so
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
