Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/122/2015dismissed

D.Purushothaman, v. Esakkimuthu,

2015-01-29Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29/1/2015 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P.PD(MD) No.122 of 2015

1. D. Purushothaman

2. D. Sankaranarayanan

3. M. Kalyana Sundari

4. M. Senthil Kumar ...

Petitioners/Defendants Vs K. Esakkimuthu ...

Respondent/Plaintiff Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against O.S.No.87 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur, striking off the plaint in O.S.No.87 of 2014. For petitioners ...

Mr.J.John

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.87 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Sattur.

2. According to the petitioners, the suit properties belong to one Sundarammal and she executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners grandfather and the petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs. According to the petitioners, who are the defendants, the respondent/plaintiff is not the legal heirs of the deceased Aachiammal and they never enjoyed the suit property. In fact, they had filed an earlier suit in respect of the fifth item in the first schedule of the property seeking injunction not to alienate the property.

3. Another suit in O.S.No.29 of 2007 was filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff herein from alienating/encumbering the suit schedule property filed in O.S.No.29 of 2007 that was decreed on 17/9/2009. There was no appeal against the said decree and the respondent/plaintiff had allowed it to reach the finality. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was another suit in O.S.No.102 of 2006 which was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of partition.

4. According to the revision petitioners, who are the defendants, the present suit is an abuse of process of Court, as the respondent/plaintiff has got no right or title of the suit property as the same has been decided in the earlier two suits. Hence prayed for striking off the plaint in the suit.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. The petitioners has filed this revision straightaway before this Honourable Court invoking the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If according to the petitioners, the suit is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

vexatious litigation, then it can be rejected by filing an application under vexatious litigation Act. If the petitioners are aggrieved that there is no cause of action for the suit or the suit is an abuse of process of Law, it is open to them to take out an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is an alternate remedy available in the Code of Civil Procedure. Without exercising the rights available as a alternate remedy, the petitioners cannot maintain this revision.

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. It is open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps to the plaint rejected on the grounds available by establishing the same. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Writs) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Sattur.

+1cc to Mr.J.John,Advocate, SR.No.3865 C.R.P.PD (MD) No.122 of 2015 29.01.2015 mvs PA/18.02.15/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/