SEENI ALIAS SUNDARAMMAL Vs. RAMASAMY POOSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am satisfied that this is eminently a fit case, where the jurisdiction under Art.227 has to be exercised to quash the order passed by the lower court. 2. The present CRP under Art.227 is to quash the order passed by the District Munsif, Virudhunagar, in O.S.No.254 of 1999 on 20. 8. 99. The facts of this case can be better appreciated reference is made to the various proceedings. 3. The first respondent herein Ramasamy Poosari, S/o.Ramasamy alias Ramaiya Poosari, Irukkankudi Village, Sattur Taluk, filed a suit in O.S.No.49 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sattur.

(2.) IN that suit, he impleaded 11 persons as defendants. The first defendant in that suit viz ., Seeni alias Sundarammal is the petitioner herein. The said suit in O.S.No.49 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the office of trusteeship of Arulmighu Mariamman Koil, Irrukangudi and for a consequential order to set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.188 of 1993. IN the said suit, the 1st respondent herein filed an application as obtained interim injunction. The petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.218 of 1998 to vacate the order of interim injunction granted. The petition was allowed and the interim injunction granted in O.S.No.49 of 1998 in favour of the plaintiff there viz ., the first respondents herein was vacated. The suit in O.S.No.188 of 1993 was filed by the petitioner herein for a declaration that she succeeded her father to the office of the trusteeship of the Mariamman Temple at Irukkangudi. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the lower appellate court confirmed the decree.

(3.) BUT, it has be judged from the angle of interest of justice and public policy. 8. As held in the decision reported in Union of India v. R. Karthikai Rajan and others , 1999 (3) LW 471, when the facts are identical the basis of the claim is identical, then it is a clear case of abuse of process of court. The Apex Court has also held in Orissa State Financial Corporation v. Hotel Jogendra , 1996 (5) SCC 357 dilatory tactics adopted by protracting the litigation would amount to abuse of process of Court. 9. Here in this case on hand, there was already a litigation with reference to which the matter has reached the High Court by way of second appeal, wherein interim order has been passed, vacating the injunction. Subsequently, another suit has been filed and the first respondent could not get any interim order. Thereafter, he thinks of the idea of filing of suit in a court which has noting to do at all with the matter and without impleading the party really affected, files a suit and obtains an order of injunction. It clearly amounts to abuse of process of Court. Such tendency on the part of the litigant should be put down with strong hands. Hence, I am of the view that as there is a blatant abuse of process of court resulting in miscarriage of justice, it eminently satisfies the parameters for stepping in under Art.227 of the Constitution. 10.