Madras High Court
Mr.Veerappan Arunachalam vs Sarath Kakumanu on 18 March, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISHKUMAR
C.R.P.No.843 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.5495 & 5496 of 2019
1.Mr.Veerappan Arunachalam
2.Mrs.Priya Asokan .... Petitioners
Vs
Sarath Kakumanu .... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under article 227 of the
Constitution of India against O.S.No.915 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble
II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.Anirudh Krishnan
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.915 of 2019 pending on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2
2.The suit has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way disturbing/blocking the plaintiff peaceful access in 40 Feet Road from Green Ways Road to the plaintiff residence at Door No.29/63, Bishop Garden, R.A.Puram, Chennai – 600 028. The plaintiff claims to be owner of the property situated at Old Door No.29, New No.63, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai – 600 028 in Plot No.10 (B) in R.S.No.3958/2 Part in Subbaiah Avenue, Bishop garden, measuring to an extent of 2 grounds 1290 Sq.ft through a gift deed dated 31.05.2004 executed by his daughter. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that he has access in the 40 feet road for which it is the ingress and egress of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the plaintiff has suppressed the earlier suit and has referred the order of this Court passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No.2107 of 2018. This Court while disposing the said civil revision petition has also taken note of the earlier order passed by this Court in C.R.P. (NPD) No.468 of 3 2016 dated 21.04.2016 in respect of the same subject matter. It is the admitted fact that the original decree holder Mrs.Jayalakshmi Ammal had purchased the property in Survey No.3958/3 on 23.02.1960. When her right to use and enjoy the property was obstructed by the respondent herein, the suit came to be filed in O.S.No.9974 of 1992 for permanent injunction. The above suit has been decreed.
4.After the death of Mrs.Jayalakshmi Ammal, who is the decree holder, the revision petitioners have acquired the suit property through various conveyance and also in accordance with Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005). Thereafter, they have filed an application to execute the decree in E.P.No.1191 of 2013, wherein the respondent has taken up an application under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code contending that there is a discrepancy in the survey number of the suit property. The above stand of the respondent in the execution petition is negatived by the Court and against which the respondent has filed a civil Revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) No.2107 of 2018. The said revision petition has discussed the survey number discrepancies in the above matter and has held that the 40 feet road is a 4 private road situated in Survey No.3958/3 and dismissed the said revision petition by confirming the order of the executing Court.
5.In the earlier ground of litigation between the parties, it is concluded that the road in the suit property is a private road and an injunction was also granted in favour of the erstwhile owner. The above decree was also sought to be executed. Now the present suit has been filed in respect of the same road contending that the road belongs to Corporation. It is curious to note that earlier grounds of litigations have totally been suppressed in the present suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. There is no whisper in whatsoever made in the present plaint about the previous proceedings between the same parties particularly in respect of the private road which is the subject matter of the suit.
6.When the rights of the parties have already been decided and issue relating to the private road was also already concluded and party who suffered the decree and Judgment, again coming before the Court for the same relief by filing another suit is only nothing but relitigation 5 besides abuse of process of law. Hence, the right in respect of the suit properties were already decided and as the plaintiff has already failed in the above suit, he cannot maintain subsequent suit for permanent injunction against the assignee or representative of the decree holder who has already been recognized as the original decree holder and has been prosecuting the execution proceedings. Such suits, in my view, is only an abuse of process of law.
7.In this regard, it is useful to refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in “K.K.Modi Vs.K.N.Modi and others” reported in “(1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573” wherein the supreme Court has held as follows:
“44.One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is re litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a 6 collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.”
8.Further, in this regard, it is also relevant to refer the Judgment in “T.Arivanandam Vs.T.V.Satyapal” reported in “AIR 1977 SC 2421” wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that, “Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the Court process and makes decrees with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such, litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibillity of the community in the judicature is to survive.”
9.Considering the above submissions and Judgment, I am of the view that the very suit itself has been laid to non-suit the earlier Judgment and decree passed against the respondent/plaintiff in the same subject matter and further, the same has been suppressed in the 7 present suit. Further, if such suits are entertained to non-suit the decree and Judgment that has been already passed, the decree and Judgment passed by the Court will not reach its logical conclusions. Such subsequent suits are only frivolous and only for relitigation.
10.Hence, the plaint in O.S.No.915 of 2019 is hereby struck off by invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the suit in O.S.No.915 of 2019 is struck off from the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.03.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ay To The II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
8
N.SATHISHKUMAR,J.
ay C.R.P.No.843 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.5495 & 5496 of 2019 Dated:18.03.2019