Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. A mere comparison of these reliefs in O.S.No.641 of 2021 with the reliefs in the present suit O.S.No.155 of 2024 would clearly indicate that they are one and the same. Apart from O.S.No.641 of 2021, in which, plaint has been rejected, the plaintiffs have also filed suit O.S.No.1736 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The suit O.S.No.641 of 2021 was rejected invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by judgment dated 02.12.2021. The plaintiffs have, in the instant suit, totally suppressed the earlier proceedings and the fact that the earlier suit was rejected. Therefore, taking note of the fact that the plaintiffs have come to the court with unclean hands by abusing the process of court and suppressing the material facts, the plaint has to necessarily be struck off. It is to be further noted that the suit has also not been filed by all the plaintiffs, since the plaint contains the signature of only two plaintiffs and that apart the long cause title does not even reflect the fact that the suit is filed by the power agent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm ) on behalf of the plaintiffs. Relitigation has been frowned upon by this court as well as by the Supreme Court. In K.K.Modi vs. K.N.Modi1, the Supreme Court has stated about relitigation as follows:

“44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. 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 collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the court's discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit suceeding.” 1 (1998) 3 SCC 573 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm ) This plaint is a clean case of relitigation, more particularly, when the earlier suit has been rejected after contest in an application to reject the plaint.