Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.The petitioner had filed the impugned petition, namely, I.A.No.353 of 2010 for rejecting the plaint on the ground that it is a clear abuse of power, process of Court as well as a case of relitigation. That apart, the plaintiff did not have a cause of action to file the suit on the said date, as the petitioner's right to the property had been declared in A.S.No.231 of 2001 and an order of injunction has been granted, restraining the defendants, their men or agents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and also a permanent injunction, restraining the 1st defendant from selling or creating any other encumbrance on the suit schedule property.

13.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the sale in favour of the 1st respondent was subject ultimately to the decree in O.S.No.160 of 1998, in which an appeal has been decreed in favour of the revision petitioner. The auction purchaser at best would only step into the shoes of the original owner, namely, Ramasamy Naidu and would only be entitled to whatever right the said Ramasamy Naidu had over the property. As on date the cancellation of the settlement deed by Ramasamy Naidu has been held to be invalid and the title of the petitioner and his brother/the 2 nd respondent has been declared. He would further submit that in the guise of the present suit, the 1st respondent/plaintiff, who is only acting at the behest of the revision petitioner's uncle, is attempting to interfere with the possession of the revision petitioner in the suit property, which has been granted to him by the decree in O.S.No.160 of 1998. Further, the learned counsel would submit that all further proceedings in execution has been stayed in A.S.No.99 of 2008 and the auction purchaser cannot institute a separate suit, which is barred under the provisions of Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis XXI Rule 101 and 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would also submit that as on date, no right or title vests upon the 1st respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the filing of the suit is totally without any cause of action. The present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and relitigation. Despite the order declaring the cancellation of the settlement deed as null and void and the order in A.S.No.99 of 2008, the 1st respondent/plaintiff is relitigating the entire issue. Relitigation is an abuse of process of Court and a ground for rejecting the plaint. He would rely on the following judgments:-

18.That apart, the petitioner has filed an obstruction petition in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis application filed by the plaintiff herein in E.A.No.88 of 2004 for delivery. The obstruction petition, which was dismissed by the Executing Court, has been stayed in I.A.No.114 of 2008 on 29.09.2008. Therefore, all further proceeding in execution has been stayed. Having suffered two orders, one directly and the other claiming as the purchaser under the defendants in the earlier suit, the petitioner has come forward with the instant suit for bare injunction. The petitioner has not only got a decree declaring the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 18.12.1982 as invalid, but has also got an injunction restraining the 1st defendant or any other person claiming under him from causing any kind of obstruction on the suit property and from creating any sale or other encumbrance. Therefore, the judgment in A.S.No.231 of 2001 gives an unfettered right of enjoyment to the plaintiff. While so, the 1st respondent by filing the suit O.S.No.119 of 2010 is trying to rewrite the order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, which amounts to abuse of process of Court and the present suit is nothing but a case of relitigation. By filing the suit in question, the plaintiff/1st respondent is attempting to scuttle the legal process. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is an auction purchaser and the petitioner has obtained a stay of all further proceedings in execution on 29.09.2008, when I.A.No.114 of 2008 was allowed. The 1st respondent is a party to the said proceeding. Despite being aware about the stay of all further proceeding in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis execution, which included the auction purchase by the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent has filed the instant suit, which is nothing but a relitigation.

19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573, had observed 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 resjudicata. 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 proceeding 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 change of the suit succeeding.