Court may strike off vexatious plaint re-litigating settled title under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

K. KUMARESH BABU, J.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.83 of 2016 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur filed by the respondent No.1.

2. Heard Mr.S.Gokul, representing Mr.P.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate (CS), for respondents 29 to 32.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first plaintiff had earlier filed a partition suit in O.S. No.253 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif, Palladam, as against the predecessor-in-interest, and the said suit came to be dismissed for default. He had also attempted to restore the suit, and the same was dismissed in the year 2000.

4. The petitioners had purchased the suit schedule property. Thereafter, another partition suit came to be filed in O.S. No.475 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, by the legal heirs of one Palani as against the petitioners as well as the first respondent, in which the petitioners had taken out an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed, striking off the plaint.

5. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal suit was filed in A.S. No.52 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Tiruppur, and the same came to be dismissed for default on 06.04.2015. He would submit that the petitioners had also instituted a suit in O.S. No.399 of 2005 as against the first respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction, and the same came to be decreed on a full-fledged trial in the year 2007. The said judgment and decree had become final, as no appeal came to be filed. Thereafter, after a lapse of 8 years, the first respondent had instituted the instant suit for the very same relief of partition and declaration. He would submit that the first respondent/plaintiff had repeatedly attempted to initiate litigation by abusing the process of Court.

6. The said property purchased by the petitioners was the subject matter of the partition suit earlier filed by the first respondent, secondly by one of the parties claiming to have a right in the property, and thirdly in the injunction suit filed by the petitioners. Even in the injunction suit filed by the petitioners, the first respondent had not made any counterclaim with regard to his right in the property, and the Court, having found title in favour of the petitioner, had granted permanent injunction against the first respondent, which had become final between the parties.

7. Now, it is a fresh attempt by the first respondent to re-open the rights which have already been settled, and therefore, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to strike off the plaint.

8. Even though the first respondent had entered appearance, there is no representation either in person or through a counsel, and for the reasons recorded in the order dated 18.03.2026, he is set ex parte.

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

10. This Court is conscious of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent judgments in the case of P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani and others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 143, and in the case of K.Valarmathi and others, Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985 ,that in exercise of its powers under Article 227, a plaint could not be struck down. However, in cases where there is an attempt to re-litigate an issue, which had long back ended in earlier litigation, a litigant cannot be allowed to reopen the same. If such litigation is permitted, it would only end up in wasting the precious time of the Court and affect the rights of other litigants.

11. This Court also takes note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the earlier judgments had held that a clever drafting of a plaint which creates an illusion of cause of action and al