C.R.P.No.2875 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI C.R.P.No.2875 of 2024 and CMP No.15277 of 2024 1.Tmt.E.Vasantha 2.E.Rajesh Kanna 3.E.Simdarrak 4.Tmt.Geetha 5.Tmt.Mala .... Petitioners Vs 1.Tmt.Pushpa 2.K.Jayalakshmi 3.M.Lakshmi R.Sundar alias Sundararajan (died) 4.Smt.R.Muniammal ... Respondents Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitutioin of India to struck down the suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018 on the file of District Munsif, Tambaram, Kancheepuram District. For Petitioners: Mr.R.C.Manoharan For Respondents: Mr.Venkatasamy Babu For R.2 and R.3 For R.1 – Not ready in notice ORDER 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2875 of 2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The revision has been filed seeking to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.9 of 2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that in respect of the same property, the respondents/plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.127 of 2017 and in the said suit, the defendants had taken out an application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code. Though the trial Court initially dismissed the application, on a revision petition filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.127 of 2017 viz.,G.Selvaraj, this Court allowed the revision in CRP (PD)No.3175 of 2018 on 03.09.2020 and the plaintiffs also unsuccessfully challenged the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore submit that the present suit is an abuse of process and amounts to re-litigation. He takes me through the reliefs and contend that the very same documents are now challenged. 4. However, the learned counsel for the respondents would state that excepting R.Muniammal, the other defendants in the earlier suit and the 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2875 of 2024 present suit are entirely different and even the schedule of property is not the same. Taking me through the schedules to both the plaints, learned counsel would state that the suit property in the present suit is to the extent of 10 cents, which is an entirely different property and it is not the subject matter of the earlier proceedings. 5. The application for rejection of the plaint was taken out by G.Selvaraj, who is cited as first defendant in the earlier suit in O.S.No.127 of 2017, who is not a party in the present suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018. I do not see how, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaint can be struck off invoking an extraordinary power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that already an application for rejection of plaint was taken out in the present suit in O.S.No.9 of 2018 and the same is pending before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. P.B.BALAJI.,J 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2875 of 2024 sr 7. In the light of the above, I am not inclined to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.9 of 2018 and the District Munisf, Tambaram is directed to expedite the enquiry in the application filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint in O.S.No.9 of 2018 and pass final orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 26.08.2025 Index: Yes/No Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The District Munsif, Tambaram CRP No.2875 of 2024 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis