CR.P.(MD)No.171 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON

30.03.2022

DELIVERED ON

20.04.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

CR.P.(MD)No.171 of 2019

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.755 of 2019

C.P.Singaravelu

...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/D-1

Vs.

1.S.Kandasamy

2.K.Selvaprakash

3.M.Mariyappan

4.M.Mani

5.C.Balasubramaniyan

6.C.Kumar

...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiff and

D-2 to D-5

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the

fair order and decreetal order dated 22.11.2018 passed in I.A.No.95

of 2018 in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 on the file of the learned II

Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli and further allow the

I.A.No.95 of 2018 in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 by rejecting the plaint in

O.S.No.1107 of 2017 on the file of the learned II Additional

District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

For Petitioner

:Mr.Shangar Murali

For R-1 & R-2 :Mr.M.Vallinayagam, for

Mr.P.Arun Jayatram

For R-3 to R-6

: No Appearance

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision

petitioner to set aside the order, dated 22.11.2018 in I.A.No.95 of

2018 in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 passed by the learned II Additional

District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before

the Court below.

1/6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CR.P.(MD)No.171 of 2019

3.The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.1107 of 2017 for the

following reliefs:

(i)for permanently restrain the defendants,

men, agents from in any manner interfering with

the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the

suit A, B, C, D Lane as its absolute owner

subject to the limited right of easement of user

and enjoyment of the said suit lane by the 1^st

defendant of user and enjoyment of the said suit

lane by the 1^st defendant to his property

situated in T.S.No.77/2 and 78 part to an extent

of 266.375 sq.ft. Only for his ingress and

egress over the suit lane to have access to the

big bazar street and to re-pass

to his property in T.S.No.77/2 and 78 part.

(ii).To further permanently restrain the

defendant, men and agent from in any manner

elongating the said suit A, B, C, D lane further

to the west of point C and D by break opening

the western boundary north-south compound wall

with a view to use the suit ABCD wall to the

illegally constructed and stealthily operated

bar in T.S.76/1 and 76/2”.

4.The revision petitioner/1^st defendant herein has filed a

petition in I.A.No.95 of 2018, under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151

of Civil Procedure Code, for rejection of plaint on the ground that

already A, B, C, D lane is declared as a common pathway between one

of the plaintiffs and vendors of this defendant. It was also

confirmed by the Appellate Court in A.S.No.25 of 1997. No second

appeal was filed. The said petition was also dismissed on

22.11.2018. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner is

before this Court.

5.So, the present suit is hit by Res judicata.

6.Heard on either side. Perused the material documents

available on record.

7.This Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the

Court below has not at all considered the earlier suit in

O.S.No.1130 of 1996 filed by the 1^st respondent and the father of the

2^nd respondent for declaration and injunction was dismissed. No

rights will accrue on the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to make any other

claim in respect of the very same ABCD suit lane. The Court below

while answering the issue in O.S.No.1130 of 1996 has categorically

held that the suit ABCD lane is a common lane, does not belong to

the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd respondent. No

2/6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

CR.P.(MD)No.171 of 2019

restricted right was given in the said decree as al