Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

84. His claim to lawfully obstruct execution of the decree in H.R.C.O.P. No. 37 of 2001 had been rejected in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4531 of 2010.

85. There cannot be relitigation of the same issues again and again.

86. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was confronted with a case :

88. In K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, (1998) 3 SCC 573 at page 592, it had been held 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 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 succeeding.” (Emphasis Supplied)

93. In paragraph 25 again in paragraphs 27 and 28, the learned Judge observed and held as follows :

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ “25. All litigations would show that it is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court. The tendency appears to be Seethalakshmi Achi, Wife of Ramasamy Chettiar filing Writ Petitions challenging the Acquisition Proceedings and praying for reconveyance of the properties. The other family members appear to be filing suits after suits claiming Partition. O.S. No. 7891 of 2000 has been filed by the Plaintiffs for Partition. On a different sets of facts, the same Plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 724 of 2003 alleging that there was family Partition and that the property was allotted to them. O.S. No. 724 of 2003 is nothing but a relitigation on the same set of facts, giving different colour which amounts to clear abuse of process. Observing that frivolous, vexatious proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court.” (Emphasis Supplied) “27. In the case of Greenalgh v. Mallard (1947 (2) All E.R. 225), the Court had to consider different proceedings on the same cause of action for conspiracy, but supported by different averments. The Court held that if the Plaintiff has chosen to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ put his case in one way, he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the Court, put his case in another way and say that he relying on a new cause of action. In such circumstances, he can be met with the plea of res judicata or the statement or plaint may be struck out on the ground that the action is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.
28. In McLlkenny v. Chief Constable Of West Midlands Police Force (1980) 2 All E.R. 227, the Court of Appeal in England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was an abuse of the process of the Court since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the Plaintiff's earlier criminal trial. The Court said even when it is not possible to strike out the Plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court because it is an abuse for a party to relitigate a question or issue which has already been decided against him even though the other party cannot satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppel.