C.VENKATESAN Vs. R.VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.36 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore.

(2.) I have heard Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Meenakshi Ganesan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.R.Prasanan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Though there is no appearance for the respondents 2 to 27, in the light of the fact that the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.36 of 2021 and the relief in the revision being only to strike off the plaint filed by the 1st respondent, the respondents 2 to 27 are only formal parties and hence, the hearing and disposal of the revision is not going to cause any prejudice to them.

(3.) Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would state that the present suit in O.S.No.36 of 2021 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is a clear abuse of process of law. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to an earlier suit filed in O.S.No.1407 of 2015. The said suit was filed by the 20th defendant in the present suit for partition. However, an application in I.A.No.269 of 2016 was taken out by the 18th defendant in the said suit, who is the 2nd petitioner in the present revision petition and the 17th defendant in the present suit, seeking to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court, by order dtd. 20/12/2019, finding that the property could not be inherited by the husband of Kamalammal, who was the original purchaser of the property in the year 1955, in the presence of legal heirs of father of Kamalammal, proceeded to reject the plaint.