RASAPPAN Vs. THIRUMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant in O.S.No,343 of 2006 is the revision petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 13-09-2007 made in I.A.No.1074 of 2006, in O.S.No,343 of 2006, wherein the trial Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the revision petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, to reject the plaint as barred by law.

(2.) O.S.No,343 of 2006 has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from evicting the plaintiff by force from the suit schedule property except under due procees of law.

(3.) THE second defendant after entering appearance in the suit, filed I.A.No.1074 of 2006, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint as barred by law. THE case of the second defendant/revision petitioner in I.A.No.1074 of 2006 is that he filed a suit against the first defendant in the suit (the second respondent herein) and his son Soundar Rajan and obtained a decree for specific performance. He filed E.P.No,74 of 2001 to execute the decree and thereafter obtained the possession of the suit schedule property on 04-08-2006 through the process of law. At the time of taking possession of the property, there was no objection from any one much less from the first respondent/plaintiff. THErefore, the present suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff with an ulterior motive of nullifying the decree passed in O.S.No.133 of 1999 and the order passed in E.P.No,74 of 2001. THEre is no cause of action for filing the present suit and the same is also barred by law. Hence, the plaint is to be rejected.