party that the said finding of the learned Court below is the correct exposition of law. However, no decision or authority was cited before me to support the said finding of the learned Court below. However, it is to be noted the reasoned decision by which this Court held the earlier application of the defendant petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 to be not maintainable was passed in C.O. 1092 of 2015 and not in C.O. 1093 of 2015 as recorded in the impugned order. In the facts of the present case already discussed above, it is evident that the grounds urged by the defendant petitioner in the second application for rejection of plaint and the ground urged in his said earlier application decided by this Court in the aforementioned earlier revisional application are completely different. Therefore, the dismissal of the earlier application of the defendant petitioner for rejection of the plaint by this Court could not render the second application of the defendant petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code to be not maintainable. For all these reasons, I am unable to convince myself to sustain the finding of the learned Court below that in view of the rejection of the earlier application of the defendant petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, his said second application for rejection of the plaint was not maintainable. In the facts of the instant case, as I have already discussed the finding of the learned Court below that the defendant filed the said second application to misuse and abuse the judicial process cannot be sustained."
