The Civil Revision Petition is filed to call for the records in O.S.No.266 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul and strike off the plaint under Order VI Rule 16(c) of C.P.C. as abuse of process of Court, as the suit is vexatious
2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.266 of 2005. According to the petitioners, pending S.A.(MD).No.210 of 2005, the respondents filed applications in C.M.P.Nos.1832 and 1833 of 2005 for injunction in respect of the property in S.No.1023. The above said CMPs. were dismissed by this Court on 20.06.2006. The respondents have filed O.S.No.266 of 2005 seeking permanent injunction in respect of S.No.1023. This suit is clear abuse of process of law and it is vexatious one. The petitioners categorically stated that the petitioners are not claiming any title and interest in the property in S.No.1023. The respondents have filed the said suit to create only problem to the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit in O.S.No.266 of 2005 is proved to be clear abuse of process of law and vexatious one. This civil revision petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in spite of the alternate remedy under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. He submitted that it is a fit case to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioners are not interfering with the possession of respondents in S.No.1023. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on two judgments reported in 2010 (4) CTC 690 in (Southern and Rajamani Transport Private Limited, rep. by its Director V.R.Venkataswamy and 33 others v. R.Srinivasan and others) and 2013 (6) CTC 809 in (N.A.Chinnasamy and another v. S.Vellingirinathan).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in spite of decree in favour of the respondents, in respect of S.No.1023, petitioners are interfering with their possession. In the circumstance, the suit is not abuse of process of law.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The respondents have filed O.S.No.266 of 2005 alleging that the petitioners are interfering with their possession in S.No.1023.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit is abuse of process of law and denied that petitioners are interfering with the possession of respondents. The petitioners have no intention of interfering with the possession of the respondents. The said submission is recorded. The petitioners are directed to file an affidavit of undertaking that they will not interfere with the possession of the respondents in respect of the property in S.No.1023 in O.S.No.266 of 2005 on the next date of hearing. On such affidavit being filed, the learned Judge shall record the same and pass appropriate orders.
8. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To II Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul..