CHANDRA Vs. EMMAN ILLANCHIZHIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 27.6.1996 made in I.A.No.557 of 1996 in O.S.No.46 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram thereby dismissing an application filed by the petitioners herein under O.14, Rule 2(1) and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE revision petitioners, who are the defendants 1 to 5 to the suit in O.S.No.46 of 1994, have filed the petition in I.A.No.557 of 1996 under O.14, Rule 2(1) and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging thereby, (i) that the respondents herein have filed the suit praying to declare that they are entitled, in their capacities as sons, daughters and wife of the deceased Selvanathan, to receive all the amounts due to the estate of the deceased Selvanathan, an employee of the 6th defendant-Villupuram Municipality and for Permanent Injunction restraining the 6th defendant Municipality from making any payment of or recommendation or certification for the payment of or for the grant of amounts due to the estate of the deceased Selvanathan or due to the sons, daughters or wife of the deceased Selvanathan to the defendants 1 to 5 and for costs; (ii) that a similar suit filed by the respondents herein in O.S.No.500 of 1991 got dismissed on 13.3.1992; (iii) that an application filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act in I.A.No.1030 of 1992 also got dismissed on 22.7.1993; (iv) that these petitioners filed O.S.No.1079 of 1992 praying to declare them as the heirs of the deceased Selvanathan and they are entitled to the estate of the deceased Selvanathan and the said suit got decreed on 21.6.1993; (v) that the application filed in I.A.No.1523 of 1993 by the respondents herein praying to set aside the ex parte decree also got dismissed on 18.2.1994; (vi) that against the dismissal of I.A.No.1030 of 1992 in O.S.No.500 of 1991, the respondents herein have filed C.R.P.No.1743 of 1994 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and that too got dismissed; (vii) that the respondents herein have again filed the present suit for the same relief; (viii) that O.S.No.500 of 1991 and O.S.No.46 of 1994 are for one and the same relief and with the same cause of action and the present suit in O.S.No.46 of 1994 is barred under O.2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ix) that such legal questions must be taken on preliminary issues framed and determined, in which event much of the time of the court and lengthy oral evidence could be avoided; (x) that the present suit is barred by res judicata and this question has to be decided as a preliminary issue and on such grounds, the petitioners would pray to take up the issue of res judicata and the bar of the suit as preliminary issues and decide the same.

(3.) THE second judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is one delivered in Chenchu Ramiah v. A.M.Noohu Nachia and another Chenchu Ramiah v. A.M.Noohu Nachia and another Chenchu Ramiah v. A.M.Noohu Nachia and another , (1999)1 MLJ. 324 wherein it is held: ?One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is relitigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to relitigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. THE reagitation may or may not be barred as res judicata but if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of process of the court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of process of the court frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless.?