(1.) This revision petition arises out of an order dtd. 18/7/2013 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode in I.A.No.306 of 2013 in O.S.No.176 of 2012 pending on the file of the above said Court. The above said suit came to be filed by C.Baby, the first respondent herein, against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 for praying partition of the properties and further relief to render a true and complete account of business of late M.Chenniappan and to pay cost.
(2.) The revision petitioner/first defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.306 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.176 of 2012 on the ground that an earlier suit was filed by the same plaintiff, which was suppressed and the Court fee was also insufficiently paid, mis-jointer of parties and the company was not added as a defendant in the suit. The application was resisted by the first respondent herein/plaintiff and after enquiry, the learned trial Judge, by the impugned order dtd. 18/7/2013 dismissed the said application filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant. The said order of the trial Court is challenged in the present civil revision petition before this Court by the petitioner.
(3.) Narrating the facts leading to the filing of the application in which the impugned order came to be passed will be helpful to understand the case. Admittedly, the suit properties belong to late M.Chenniappan, the father of the revision petitioner and the respondents 1 and 3 and the 2nd respondent 's husband. The other respondents in this Revision are erstwhile partners of the firm and relatives. The first respondent has claimed partition in the property and the revision petitioner has objected the same citing the reason that already the competent civil Court in O.S.No.763 of 2010 has declared that the Will which was executed by M.Chinnappan in favour of the revision petitioner. In that decree, the properties were benefitted in favour of the Revision Petitioner.