Madras High Court
Vijayakumar vs Rangan @ P. Rangasamy on 30 April, 2026
CRP No. 745 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
CRP No.745 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.3716 of 2022
1. S.Vijayakumar
2. K.M.Sivakumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Rangan @ P. Rangasamy
2. Karuppammal
3. M.Kanniammal
4. R.Kaladevi
5. P.Mahali
6. P.Arumugam
7. K.Sagunthala
8. Padmasudha
9. Jananishree
10.K.Ravi Anand
11.Ramachandran
12.R.Pandiammal
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
13.P.Kamalam
14.K.Rojambal
15.K.M.Illango
16.S.R.Srinivasan
17.P.Palanisamy
18.K.M.Subramnaiam
19.S.Krishnakumar
20.A.P.V.Easwaraperiasamy,
21.C.Palanisamy
22.M/s.Indian Overseas Bank
Rep. by its Manager, No.15, Velampalayam
Branch, Tiruppur North Taluk, Tiruppur.
23.M/s.Union Bank of India,
Rep. by its Manager, No.52, New Market
Street, Tiruppur, Having Head Office, No.239,
Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumabi.
24.M/s.State Bank of India
Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Stressed Asset
Management Branch, Raja Plaza, 1112,
Avinashi Road, Coimbatore.
25.M/s.Canara Bank
Rep. by its Manager, P.N.Road Branch, Having
Head Office J.C. Road, Bangalore.
26.M/s.Current Trends,
Rep. by its, Managing Director, Sri
S.Krishnakumar, S/o.K.Subramaniam,
Pongupalayam Village, Now at Ayyan Thottam,
Kalampalayam, Pongavadi Post, Tiruppur
North Taluk, Tiruppur.
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
27.M/s.K.P.R.Mills
Rep. by its Managing Director,
P.Nataraj, No.270-J, Periyar Colony,
Anupperpalayam, Tiruppur.
28.M/s.Brunthavan Garment,
Rep. by its, Managing Director, Sri A.Shiyam,
No.183/13, Tex Pro Road, Uthukuli, Tiruppur
District.
29.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its The Tiruppur District Collector,
Collector Office Compound, Palladam Road,
Tiruppur.
30.The Tahsildar
Tiruppur North Taluk, Kumaran Road,
Tiruppur.
31.Tiruppur Joint I Sub Registrar
No.1/3, Vignesh Complex, Opposite to Sivan
Theater, Postal Colony, 60 Feet Road, Tiruppur
Town, Tiruppur.
32.Tiruppur Joint 2 Sub Registrar
Samynathapuram, Andhra Bank Back Side,
Avinashi Road, Tiruppur Town, Tiruppur.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.83 of 2016 on the file of
Principal Sub-ordinate Judge at Tiruppur filed by the respondent No.1.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Gokul
For Mr.P.Mahesh Kumar
For Respondent(s): For R1 – No appearance
Mr.N.Muthuvel
Government Advocate(CS)
For RR29 to R32
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in
O.S.No.83 of 2016 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur filed
by the respondent No.1.
2. Heard Mr.S.Gokul, representing Mr.P.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate (CS), for
respondents 29 to 32.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first
plaintiff had earlier filed a partition suit in O.S. No.253 of 1997 on the file of
the District Munsif, Palladam, as against the predecessor-in-interest, and the
said suit came to be dismissed for default. He had also attempted to restore the
suit, and the same was dismissed in the year 2000.
4. The petitioners had purchased the suit schedule property. Thereafter,
another partition suit came to be filed in O.S. No.475 of 2004 on the file of the
District Munsif, Tiruppur, by the legal heirs of one Palani as against the
petitioners as well as the first respondent, in which the petitioners had taken out
an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was allowed, striking off
the plaint.
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
5. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal suit was filed in A.S. No.52 of
2012 on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Tiruppur, and the same
came to be dismissed for default on 06.04.2015. He would submit that the
petitioners had also instituted a suit in O.S. No.399 of 2005 as against the first
respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction, and the same came to be decreed
on a full-fledged trial in the year 2007. The said judgment and decree had
become final, as no appeal came to be filed. Thereafter, after a lapse of 8 years,
the first respondent had instituted the instant suit for the very same relief of
partition and declaration. He would submit that the first respondent/plaintiff had
repeatedly attempted to initiate litigation by abusing the process of Court.
6. The said property purchased by the petitioners was the subject matter
of the partition suit earlier filed by the first respondent, secondly by one of the
parties claiming to have a right in the property, and thirdly in the injunction suit
filed by the petitioners. Even in the injunction suit filed by the petitioners, the
first respondent had not made any counterclaim with regard to his right in the
property, and the Court, having found title in favour of the petitioner, had
granted permanent injunction against the first respondent, which had become
final between the parties.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
7. Now, it is a fresh attempt by the first respondent to re-open the rights
which have already been settled, and therefore, the petitioner seeks indulgence
of this Court to strike off the plaint.
8. Even though the first respondent had entered appearance, there is no
representation either in person or through a counsel, and for the reasons
recorded in the order dated 18.03.2026, he is set ex parte.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
10. This Court is conscious of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the recent judgments in the case of P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani and
others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 143, and in the case of K.Valarmathi
and others, Vs. Kumaresan, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985 ,that in
exercise of its powers under Article 227, a plaint could not be struck down.
However, in cases where there is an attempt to re-litigate an issue, which had
long back ended in earlier litigation, a litigant cannot be allowed to reopen the
same. If such litigation is permitted, it would only end up in wasting the
precious time of the Court and affect the rights of other litigants.
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
11. This Court also takes note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) reported in
(2020) 7 SCC 366, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the earlier
judgments had held that a clever drafting of a plaint which creates an illusion of
cause of action and also the Court must to be vigilant against any such
camouflage or suppression should determine whether the litigation is utterly
vexatious, abuse of process of the Court and in that context, the Apex Court had
held that such litigation should be nipped in the bud. For better appreciation,
the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“24. “Cause of action” means every fact which would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support
his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts,
which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him
to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
24.1. In Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna
Tapovanam [Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam,
(2005) 10 SCC 51] this Court held : (SCC p. 60, para 24)
“24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if
traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in
order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other
words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law
applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against
the defendant. It must include some act done by the
defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of
action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded.”
24.2. In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal [T.__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] this Court
held that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint
discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in
the following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5)“5. … The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful—not formal—reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a
cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing.…”
(emphasis supplied)24.3. Subsequently, in ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal [ITC Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2
SCC 70] this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting
which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is required is
that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
24.4. If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has
created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri
Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama
Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC
(Civ) 602] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus
litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant
against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the
litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the
court.”
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
12. From the arguments made and the records perused, it could be seen
that the first respondent had earlier instituted a suit for partition in respect of the
very same property, which came to be dismissed for default, and the attempt to
restore the same also ended in failure, thereafter, he had not prosecuted the
same.
13. A further suit filed by one of the legal heirs of Palani, one of the
brothers of the first respondent/plaintiff, for partition, which also came to be
rejected on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Even though an
appeal suit had been filed by the plaintiff therein, the same was also allowed to
be dismissed for non-prosecution.
14. The first respondent/plaintiff, who was also a party to the said suit,
had not preferred any independent appeal against the order of rejection of the
plaint. In a partition suit, the plaintiffs and defendants, all stand on the same
footing, and if a suit is rejected either under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or even on
merits, a co-defendant, who has a right in the property, can also file an appeal
against the same. However, the first respondent/plaintiff had not challenged the
order of rejection of the suit filed by his siblings.
15. The earlier suits came to an end as early as in the year 2012, and in
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
the interregnum, the petitioner herein had instituted a suit as against the first
respondent in O.S. No.399 of 2005 for an injunction as against the first
respondent and two others, which was contested by the first respondent, and he
had suffered a judgment and decree of injunction, which had also been put to
rest, as he had failed to challenge the same.
16. It is further to be noted that the first respondent/plaintiff had also not
made any counterclaim as against the petitioner, and that the issue with regard
to whether the petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein, had title to the property
had also been framed and decided.
17. In such an event, having failed to contest the title declared in favour
of the petitioner, and the issue had become final between the parties, and
becoming a judgments in personam, this Court is of the view that the attempt by
the first respondent in the present suit is only an attempt to re-litigate the entire
issue, and if permitted to be prosecuted, it would only waste the precious
judicial time of the Court, affecting the rights of other litigants.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the revision
petition deserves to be allowed, and accordingly, the revision petition stands
allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.83 of 2016 on the file of Principal Sub-
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
ordinate Judge at Tiruppur, filed by the respondent No.1, stands struck off. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
kak
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur.
2. The Tiruppur District Collector,
State of Tamil Nadu
Collector Office Compound,
Palladam Road, Tiruppur.
3. The Tahsildar
Tiruppur North Taluk,
Kumaran Road, Tiruppur.
4. Tiruppur Joint I Sub Registrar
No.1/3, Vignesh Complex, Opposite to Sivan Theater,
Postal Colony, 60 Feet Road, Tiruppur Town, Tiruppur.
5. Tiruppur Joint 2 Sub Registrar
Samynathapuram, Andhra Bank Back Side,
Avinashi Road, Tiruppur Town, Tiruppur.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 745 of 2022
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
kak
CRP No. 745 of 2022
30-04-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[ad_1]
Source link
