Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.The stand of the revision petitioner is that to get over the impediment, the first respondent/plaintiff has obtained a collusive decree against the Kundrakudi Aadheenam and obtained a registered sale deed in her favour and on the basis of sale deed from the individual who has no right and that the impugned suit has been filed and obtained an order of ad-interim injunction and further it is to be noted that the Special Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed against I.A.No.172 of 1993 and that the present petitioners has filed W.P.No.4881 of 1996 against the encroachers, which has been dismissed and later W.A.No.580 of 1996 has been filed and this Court has held in the writ appeal that 'encroachers need not be heard in the settlement proceedings' and as against the W.A.No.580 of 1996 order S.L.P.No.18512 of 1997 has been filed and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the title and possession of the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have been confirmed right from Munsif Court to Hon'ble Supreme Court and in fact, the possession lies with the revision petitioners and not with the first respondent/ plaintiff who claims title which has been passed under E.P.No.8 of 2004 in O.S.No.140 of 2001 under a collusive decree after dropping the revision petitioners viz., the contesting parties etc. and therefore, it will be a waste of precious judicial time in relitigating and reappraising the title of the suit property, which is a part of the property, which has been the subject matter of the aforesaid proceedings and moreover, a relitigation may or may not be barred as res judicata, but if the same issue is sought to be projected again, it amounts to abuse of process of Court and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice by striking off the plaint in O.S.No.828 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif, Alandur.

It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients."

11.Added further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.T.C. Limited V. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others 1997 (III) CTC 746 whereby and whereunder the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'clear right to sue should be disclosed in plaint and clever drafting creating illusions of cause of action are not permitted.' He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court K.K.Modi V. K.N.Modi and others (1998) 3 Supreme Court Cases 573 at page 574 wherein it is held that 'the plaint in the suit to the limited extent that it raised an alternative independent plea, would not amount to relitigation of the same issue and hence would not amount to abuse of the process of Court.' Reliance is also placed on the side of the revision petitioners to the decision of this Court Srinivasan and six others V. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattaviathalai, Tiruchirapally District 1998 (I) CTC 630 (FB) wherein it is held that 'the jurisdiction of Civil Court is not totally and completely ousted or barred in respect of adjudication of claims of title, questions or issues which requires to be decided for implementing ryotwari settlement in areas governed by legislation abolishing minor inams.'