Allowed¶47

Muthukumar v. v.M.Thirumurugan

Madras HC4 Jul 2025CRP/2150/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 strike off plaint; abuse of process; Order VII Rule 11 CPC alternate remedy; re-litigation after final decree in partition suit; res judicata; vexatious litigation; flog a dead horse; permanent injunction; co-sharers; K.P.Natarajan (2021) 15 SCC 817; Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423; Surya Dev Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai (2019) 9 SCC 538; Jayaseelan 2022 (3) CTC 383; Tripower Enterprises 2025 (1) CTC 58; Annadurai C.R.P(MD) No.2635 of 2023; Gobichettipalayam; Erode; Madras High Court; CRP allowed; plaint struck off.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 (District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District) struck off; no order as to costs; connected CMP.No.12602 of 2025 closed. ¶47

Muthukumar Vs v.M.Thirumurugan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition allowed; plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 (District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District) struck off; no order as to costs; connected CMP.No.12602 of 2025 closed.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court may, under Article 227 of the Constitution, directly strike off a plaint alleged to be an abuse of process, notwithstanding that an alternate remedy under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is available to the defendants before the trial court. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The ground of abuse of process is not enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; a prayer for striking off the plaint on the ground of abuse of process is independent of the Order VII Rule 11 remedy.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Since the jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinguishable from that under Article 226 (as held in Radhey Shyam), there is no impediment to this Court exercising its power under Article 227 to strike off a plaint that is a clear abuse of process.

¶45

Key takeaways

In view of Article 227 powers being wider than those under Section 115 CPC (K.P.Natarajan), this Court is not toothless and can strike off a plaint found to be a gross abuse of process.ratio¶40
An unsuccessful party who had full opportunity to contest the earlier suit cannot be permitted to flog a dead horse and re-litigate the very same issues; when such attempts are brought to its notice, this Court, exercising powers under Article 227, is entitled to nip such vexatious action in the bud.ratio¶40
The plaint deserves to be struck off even on the admitted facts set out in the plaint, which admit the passing of the final decree in the earlier suit for partition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B.Balaji J.) allows a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and strikes off the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 (District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District). The respondent-plaintiffs, having been parties to an earlier partition suit that ended in a final decree dated 26.10.2016 (with revenue records mutated) and whose first appeal (A.S.No.12 of 2017) was dismissed on 05.11.2024 by the III Additional District Court, Erode, filed a fresh suit claiming to be co-sharers/dwellers and seeking a permanent injunction. Held: (i) abuse of process is not a ground enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and a prayer to strike off a plaint on that ground is independent of that remedy; (ii) Article 227 jurisdiction, being wider than Section 115 CPC (K.P.Natarajan, (2021) 15 SCC 817) and distinguishable from Article 226 (Radhey Shyam, (2015) 5 SCC 423), may be exercised to nip vexatious re-litigation in the bud - an unsuccessful party cannot flog a dead horse; (iii) the Annadurai line (C.R.P(MD) No.2635 of 2023, following Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai, (2019) 9 SCC 538) directing recourse to Order VII Rule 11 was distinguished as resting on a res judicata/finality plea, whereas the present plaint is a gross abuse of process. Reliance was also placed on Jayaseelan Vs. Sekar, 2022 (3) CTC 383 and Tripower Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., Vs. Selvam Aruldoss, 2025 (1) CTC 58. Plaint struck off; connected CMP closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Order reserved on : 26.06.2025

¶4

Order pronounced on : 04.07.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶7

CRP.No.2150 of 2025 & CMP.No.12602 of 2025

¶8

1.S.Muthukumar 2.R.Palanisamy 3.P.S.Eswaran 4.A.V.Naveen 5.K.M.Chinnadurai 6.K.N.Ravishankar ..Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.V.M.Thirumurugan 2.A.Muth Vijayan 3.A.Muth Selvan

¶11

..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District by allowing the revision.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnan For Respondents : Ms.Avanthika Vasu & Ms.Danyuktaa Shruti

¶14

1/10

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The defendants 1 to 6 have taken out an application invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode.

¶19

2.I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Avanthika Vasu and Ms.Danyuktaa Shruti, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

3.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit is an abuse of process of law and having been a party to earlier partition suit proceedings, the respondents have chosen to file a fresh suit, despite final decree having been passed in the suit for partition, claiming that they are co-sharers and dwellers, carrying out agricultural activities in the suit property and that their possession should be protected, by grant of permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioners from in any manner obstructing, disturbing or dispossessing the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Counsel would take me through the suit for partition, the preliminary decree passed therein, the final decree passed on 26.10.2016 and subsequently

¶21

2/10

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶24

mutation of revenue records pursuant to the said final decree proceedings. He would further submit that the First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs in A.S.No.12 of 2017 was also dismissed on 05.11.2024 by the III Additional District Court, Erode and suppressing all these material facts, the plaint has been filed as though the plaintiffs are still co-sharers. He would therefore state that the suit is ex facie illegal and a gross abuse of process of law. He would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Jayaseelan Vs. Sekar (Died) and Others reported in 2022 (3) CTC 383 and Tripower Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., Vs. Selvam Aruldoss , reported in 2025 (1) CTC 58, in support of his contentions.

¶25

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would state that the extraordinary power under Article 227 of Constitution of India cannot be used in a routine manner and the alternate remedy by way of seeking relief under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is available to the revision petitioners, and without resorting to the same, directly approaching this Court and seeking striking off the pleadings under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not permissible.

¶26

5.The learned counsel for the respondents would place reliance on the decision of this Court in Annadurai Vs. Santhanakrishnan and Others , in 3/10

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶29

C.R.P(MD) No.2635 of 2023 dated 20.06.2024. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Others, reported in ( 2019) 9 SCC 538 , held that the High Court as not only a measure of self imposition, but also a matter of discipline, shall not entertain revisions where specific remedy is available under the CPC.

¶30

6.Following the ratio laid down in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai's case, this Court in Annadurai's case, held that directly approaching the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the plaint would not be proper and granting liberty to file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the revision came to be dismissed.

¶31

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

8.There is merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that after suffering a final decree in a suit for partition, the respondents have approached the Court, setting out a cause of action as if they are co-owners and they are entitled to protection. This Court, in Tripower Enterprises's case and 4/10

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶35

Jayaseelan's case referred herein supra, held that if the Court is able to come to a conclusion that the suit is a clear abuse of process of law, then the plaint can be struck off. The case on which reliance is placed on by the respondents was a case where the defendants sought for striking off the plaint on the ground that the earlier litigation attained finality. The issue of res judicata came into play and this Court held that the same cannot be taken up for consideration under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. However, this Court did go into the issue of whether there was re-litigation, suppression of earlier litigation amounting to abuse of process and ultimately held that the defendant would have to take recourse only to provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC before the Trial Court.

¶36

9.There are conflicting views that have been taken by Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the above decisions, two of which are in favour of exercising the discretionary relief to strike off the plaint where there is gross abuse of process of Court and in the other judgment, where it is held that approaching the High Court directly would not be the proper remedy even when there is gross abuse of process of Court. However, subsequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Paripalana Sabai's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the powers of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India in K.P.Natarajan and Others Vs. 5/10

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶39

Muthalammal and Others, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 817, where it has been held that the powers available under Article 227 of Constitution of India is wider than the powers under Section 115 of CPC.

¶40

10.Therefore, it is not as if this Court is toothless to strike off the plaint when it is found that the plaint is a gross abuse of process. As already pointed out, despite a final decree being passed and the same also being unsuccessfully challenged before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs have come to Court setting out a cause of action as if they they are still co-sharers in possession. An unsuccessful party who had full opportunity to contest the suit, cannot be allowed to flog a dead horse and re-litigate the very same issues. Certainly, when such attempts are brought to the notice of this Court, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India is certainly entitled to nip such vexatious action in the bud.

¶41

11.Though the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioners have a remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the ground of abuse of process is not enumerated under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. A prayer for striking off the plaint on the ground that it is an abuse of process is independent of the remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. There is no embargo for this

¶42

6/10

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶45

Court to step in and prevent such abuse of process being perpetuated. Even in Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Others, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 , delivered by a Three Member Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though overruled an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others , reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 , held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is distinguishable from the one under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no impediment for exercise of power by this Court to strike off the plaint which is a clear abuse of process.

¶46

12.In the light of the above, I am inclined to strike off the plaint even on the admitted facts that have been set out in the plaint, admitting the passing of final decree in the suit for partition.

¶47

13.In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, is struck off. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶48

04.07.2025

¶49

Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶50

7/10

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

CRP.No.2150 of 2025

¶53

Index : Yes/No ata