CRP/117/2026 of M.JOTHI Vs V.MURUGAN on 9 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in OS.No.139 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.139 of 2025, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction not to evict him unless and otherwise by due process of law. The cause of action for filing the present suit is that the respondent/plaintiff was appointed as a guardian to take care of the property and he was always in possession and enjoyment of the property in a temporary shed that was constructed and that attempts are being made by the petitioners/defendants, who are none other than the sons of the plaintiff, to evict him from the property and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has sought for the relief of permanent injunction not to evict him unless and otherwise by due process of law.

4. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants mainly on the ground that the present suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff is a clear abuse of process of law, which has been orchestrated by the children of the third wife of the respondent/plaintiff, who lost the earlier round in O.S.No.184 of 2022, when the plaint was rejected by this Court in CRP (PD) No.3386 of 2025 by an order dated 04.07.2025.

5. The other ground raised is that the property in question is a house site and therefore, there is no question of respondent/plaintiff being in possession of the property as a care taker and that he is living elsewhere and as dutiful sons, they are taking care of the respondent/father by paying him maintenance amount and to substantiate the same, the bank account statement of the 2nd petitioner has also been filed in the typed set of documents.

6. Before going into the grounds that have been raised in this Civil Revision Petition, this Court has to necessarily take into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in P.Suresh vs. D.Kalivani and Others reported in 2026 SCC online SC 143, wherein the Apex Court has held that wherever alternative remedy is available under the C.P.C., either under Order VII Rule 11 or under Order VI Rule 16 of C.P.C., the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the parties must be sent back to the Trial Court to workout their remedy.

7. In the case in hand, the ground that has been raised on the side of the petitioner is that it is a case of re-litigation and abuse of process of law. These are grounds that are not available under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., and therefore, the petitioner can seek for striking out the plaint only before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Useful reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in K.Suganthy vs. R.Chandrasekaran and Ors. reported in 2025 4 MLJ 520 and A.K. Hafasha and Ors. vs. Anees Banu and Ors reported in 2025 5 MLJ 499.

8. In the case in hand, it is contended that the suit property was originally owned by one Viyapuri Mudaliar, who had executed a registered Will on 06.02.1989 and that Schedule ‘B’ property was bequeathed in favour of the petitioners and Schedule ‘A’ property was bequeathed in favour of Kulanthaivel, who is the eldest son of Viyapuri Mudaliar. The said Viyapuri Mudaliar, during his life time, settled the ‘A’ Schedule property under the registered Settlement Deeds dated 09.11.1989 and 28.05.1990. Thus, the ‘B’ Schedule property remained intact and after the lifetime of Viyapuri Mudaliar, the petitioners are claiming right over the ‘B’ Schedule property.

9. One M.Vaidheeshwaran and M.Yuvashree filed a suit in O.S.No.184 of 2022 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of a 2/5th share in the suit properties and to declare the Will dated 06.02.1989 as null and void and not binding. In this suit, the petitioners were added as the 2nd and 3rd defendants and their father, Murugan, who is the plaintiff in the present case was included as the 1st defendant. The petitioners herein filed an application for rejection of plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing the said suit. The application was dismissed by the Trial Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed CRP No.3386 of 2024 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 04.07.2025, allowed the Civil Revision Petition and rejected the plaint filed in O.S.No.184 of 2022.

10. When this Court passed the said order, the Will that was executed by the said Viyapuri Mudaliar was gone into by this Court and it was held that the stand taken by the plaintiffs therein, as if the Will stood revoked since Viyapuri Mudaliar dealt with the ‘A’ Schedule property in the Will, came to be rejected. It was categorically held that, insofar as the ‘B’ Schedule property is concerned, it absolutely vested with the testator. In view of the same, the share that was claimed by the children of the t hird wife of the respondent herein was found to be unsustainable and this Court found that there was absolutely no cause of action for filing the suit and accordingly, the plaint was rejected.

11. After the plaint was rejected by this Court, the father of the petitioners had instituted the present suit, claiming that he is in possession of the property and that he should not be evicted.

12. The suit is a clear abuse of process of law for the simple reason that the property in question is a vacant land. Therefore, there is no question of the plaintiff being in physical possession of the property. If that is so, the very relief sought for in the suit as if he should not be evicted unless and otherwise by due process of law, is nothing but a specious plea which will have no legs to stand.

13. This Court is reminded of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.Arivanandam vs. T.V.Satyapal and Another reported in 1977 4 SCC 467, wherein the Apex Court held that whenever such suits are filed, it has to be nipped in the bud to ensure that no further harassment is caused to the parties and that the time of the Court is not wasted by keeping useless litigation pending.

14. In the case in hand, the plaintiff claims to be a caretaker of vacant land and he has sought for an injunction not to evict. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law, wherein the litigants who lost the earlier round in O.S.No.184 of 2022 are indirectly using an old man to file a suit to achieve their ends. This is an appropriate case where this Court has to necessarily exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and strike off the plaint.

15. Accordingly, the plaint filed in OS.No.139 of 2025 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, is struck off and the present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR To The District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri.

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR CRP No. 117 of 2026 09-10-2026