S.MUTHUKUMAR Vs. V.M.THIRUMURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 6 have taken out an application invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode.

(2.) I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Avanthika Vasu and Ms.Danyuktaa Shruti, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit is an abuse of process of law and having been a party to earlier partition suit proceedings, the respondents have chosen to file a fresh suit, despite final decree having been passed in the suit for partition, claiming that they are co-sharers and dwellers, carrying out agricultural activities in the suit property and that their possession should be protected, by grant of permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioners from in any manner obstructing, disturbing or dispossessing the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Counsel would take me through the suit for partition, the preliminary decree passed therein, the final decree passed on 26/10/2016 and subsequently mutation of revenue records pursuant to the said final decree proceedings. He would further submit that the First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.12 of 2017 was also dismissed on 5/11/2024 by the III Additional District Court, Erode and suppressing all these material facts, the plaint has been filed as though the plaintiffs are still co-sharers. He would therefore state that the suit is ex facie illegal and a gross abuse of process of law. He would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Jayaseelan Vs. Sekar (Died) and Others reported in 2022 (3) CTC 383 and Tripower Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., Vs. Selvam Aruldoss, reported in 2025 (1) CTC 58, in support of his contentions.