Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. This suit was contested by the review petitioner/revision petitioner. During the pendency of the suit the review petitioner/revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.61 of 2013 under Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2011 from the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge Cuddalore on the following five grounds;

1.The respondent is once again relitigating the earlier proceedings.

2.The suit itself is a sheer abuse of process of law and judicial procedure.

19. While advancing his arguments he has also referred to his earlier arguments and once again placed reliance upon the decisions reported in K.K.Modi vs.K.N.Modi and others rep. it 1998 3 SCC 573 and yet another decision in C.Bagyalakshmi reported in 2006 (5) CTC 74.

20. On the other hand Mr.K.Mohanamurali learned counsel for the respondent has adverted to that there is no error apparent in the order which is sought to be reviewed here and that he has urged to dismiss the review application in liminie. He has also maintained that the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge Cuddalore is not for the same cause of action which was earlier rejected by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore as well as by this court and that the suit is not for relitigation but it is absolutely a fresh litigation for which the review petitioner has to answer.

27. This court has struck a balance between the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Having been considered the submissions made by both the learned counsels this court would like to place it on record that the plea of remarriage has already been raised in I.A.No.314 of 2011 in CMA.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore wherein she had illustrated the happenings of 26.05.2010 and sought permission to receive additional documents as exhibits. Though the said application was initially allowed, eventually the civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed which would go to demonstrate the fact that the respondents plea and contention of continuation of marital relationship was rejected in the CMA's arising out of the original decree of divorce. The decree of divorce was confirmed in the appeal. The respondent had also contended in CMSA No.56 and 57 of 2011 that she had remarried the review petitioner, but both the CMSA's were dismissed as withdrawn and therefore, the contention of remarrige of the revision petitioner was ever rejected by this court, which has not been challenged by the respondent. Therefore, the common judgment and decree in CMSA.No.56 and 57 of 2011 has become final and therefore it cannot be once again agitated under the guise of filing of a fresh suit. As argued by Mr.Muthukumarasamy learned senior counsel once a plea is rejected and confirmed by the appellate court, it cannot be reopened once again and reagitated by way of filing a fresh suit with the same cause of action as against the review petitioner. Since the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2013 appears to be relitigation and barred by the principle of resjudicata it is a sheer abuse of process of court.

1.Relitigation

2.Barred by Doctrine of resjudicata, in view of the judgment passed in CMA.No.24 and25 of 2011 which were confirmed by this court in CMSA 56 and 57 of 2011 dated 26.05.2011.

3.Non-availability of cause of action

4.Abuse of process of Court.

However there shall not be any order as to costs.

22.07.2014 prm Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Note:Issue Order Copy Today T.MATHIVANAN,J prm in 22.07.2014