Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 _____ http://www.judis.nic.in relitigation on the same set of facts, giving different colour which amounts to clear abuse of process.
(Emphasis supplied)
26. 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, as a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of 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 _____ http://www.judis.nic.in power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of public and the Court from being wasted.

...................

28. In McLLKENNY ..VS.. 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 _____ http://www.judis.nic.in against him even though the other party cannot satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppel.