9.Though the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that they have an independent cause of action to file a suit as against the respondents herein, this Court do not agree with the proposition. The predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioner has succeeded in filing a suit as against the same set of defendants in the earlier suit. When a decree for injunction granted in the earlier suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioner is in force, the revision petitioner cannot plead a separate cause of action for seeking the same relief. Merely because, the revision petitioner has purchased the suit property from the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.1721 of 1988, that does not mean that they have independent cause of action, merely because, they were not impleaded as party in the earlier proceedings. It is right time for the revision petitioner to implead herself as a party to the proceedings by invoking Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC in the pending second appeal. Even though earlier suit is not finally decided, the suit filed by the revision petitioner is also a re-litigation and cannot be permitted. It is also open to the respondents to file an application to stay the suit under Section 10 of CPC and raise an objection, as to the maintainability of the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2011 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
