VEERAPPAN Vs. RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and executable order passed in I.A. No. 974 of 2004 in O.S. No. 411 of 2004 dated 09.01.2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai.

(2.) The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff and the Respondents herein are the Defendants in the suit. The Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 411 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents/defendants from interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession of the suit properties and also restraining the Defendants from selling, mortgaging or otherwise deal with the suit properties. Subsequently, the Respondents/ Defendants filed I.A. No. 974 of 2004 for rejecting the plaint. The Petitioner/ Plaintiff also filed counter to the said I.A. denying all the allegations made therein and also stating that the I.A. is devoid of merits and hence the same should be dismissed. After hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides, the Trial Court allowed the I.A. and rejected the plaint on the ground that the same is covered by the principles of res judicata. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner herein/plaintiff.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contended that the Trial Court is wrong in rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. She further contended that the Trial Court has failed to note that the principles of res judicata will not apply to this case and that the Plaintiff-Sengammal in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 83 of 1995 is not a party to the present suit. Further it is contended that the earlier suit in O.S. No. 83 of 1995 was filed by the Plaintiff-Sengammal for partition and the subsequent present suit in O.S. No. 411 of 2004 is filed by the Petitioner herein is for permanent injunction and the parties are not the same and the reliefs are also not the same. She further stated that the third item of the suit properties is not the subject matter in the earlier suit. Therefore, the suit properties are also not the same. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the I.A. The Trial Court has also exceeded its jurisdiction and hence this Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further it is contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Trial Court has not understood the scope of the principles of res judicata and relied on the following judgments of this Court in support of her proposition: