DURGA PRASATH Vs. VASANTHA @ VASANTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 30.11.2015 passed in I.A. No. 94 of 2014 in O.S. No. 212 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the defendant. The respondent is the plaintiff.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 212 of 2013 for declaration to declare that there is a pathway which is existing in the East end of the defendant's property upto the plaintiff's cultivating lands and consequential injunction. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 94 of 2014 under Order 7, Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint on the ground that the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 79 of 2010 for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property. At the time itself, the respondent ought to have included the property sought for in the present suit. Therefore, the suit is hit under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. The respondent filed counter affidavit and stated that after filing of the suit, the petitioner closed the pathway in the southern side and thereby, prevented the respondent from using the pathway to reach his land. The cause of action has arose when the petitioner closed the pathway after filing of the suit. The learned Judge after considering the facts and materials on record dismissed the application. Against that order, the petitioner has filed the present revision.