Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That was resisted by the plaintiff on various grounds by filing counter. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, was of the view that a plea of resjudicata is a matter for trial as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 3357 in the case of Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat Vs Inder Kumar, against which this revision is preferred by the defendants, on the ground that the title over the property is decided even in the E.P., proceedings itself. It is also confirmed in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.13 of 2022. The question of relitigation was not considered by the trial Court.

8. So in essence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim made by the Kulanthaivelu was already negatived. Now the respondent is claiming through Kulanthaivelu. So she cannot maintain the suit, in respect of the right claimed by her husband. According to the petitioner, it is nothing but a clear case of relitigation. The title which was decided against the husband of the revision petitioner will bind her.

44. One of the examples 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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 also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

11. As mentioned above, the pleadings of both the parties and as well as the fact shows that it is nothing but another attempt by the wife of the defeated husband to relitigate the issue. The aim is to stall the E.P. proceedings. To over come this sort of vexatious litigation only the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if there is any attempt on the part of any litigant to relitigate the matter, it must be nipped in the bud. Here it is a clear case of relitigation. At the cost of repetition, the respondent wants to sustain her title on the failed husband's right. Since the trial Court has not considered these aspects, interference of this Court in exercising the power under Article 227 of constitution of India and under Section 115 of C.P.C is warranted, since the trial Court has not exercised the jurisdiction, which is vested upon it, in a proper manner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis