Senni @ Sundarammal vs Ramasamy Poosari and Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable

A. Raman, J.—I am satisfied that this is an eminently a fit case, where the jurisdiction under Article 227 has to be exercised to quash the

order passed by the lower court. The present C.R.P. under Article 227 is to quash the order passed by the District Munsif, Virudhunagar, in O.S.

No. 254/99 on 20.8.99. The facts of this case can be better appreciated if a detailed reference is made to the various proceedings.

The first respondent herein Ramasamy Poosari, S/o. Ramasamy (c) Ramaiya Poosari, Irukkankundi Village, Sattur Taluk, filed a suit in O.S.

No. 49/98, on the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Sattur. In that suit he impleaded 11 persons as defendants. The first defendant in that suit viz.,

Seeni @ Sundarammal is the petitioner herein. The said suit in O.S. No. 49/98 was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled

to the office of trusteeship of Arulmigu Mariamman Koil, Irukkangudi and for a consequential order to set aside the decree passed in O.S. No.

188/93. In the said suit, the 1st respondent herein filed an application, and obtained interim injunction. The petitioner herein filed an application in

I.A. No. 218/98 to vacate the order of interim injunction granted. The petition was allowed and the interim injunction granted in O.S. No. 49/98 in

favour of the plaintiff there viz., the first respondent herein was vacated. The suit in O.S. No. 188/93 was filed by the petitioner herein for a

declaration that she succeeded her father to the office of the Trusteeship of the Mariamman Temple at Irukkangudi. The suit was decreed by the

trial Court and the lower appellate Court confirmed the decree. Objecting to the same, S.A. No. 465/98 was filed. Pending Second Appeal, the

defendants 4 to 9 and 11 in O.S. No. 49 of 1998 and who are appellants in S.A. No. 465 of 1998 filed an application to grant an order of

injunction restraining the petitioner herein from functioning as trustee of the Mariamman Temple, pending disposal of the appeal and to stay of

operation of the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 27/96. This court passed an order on 30.4.1998,

dismissing both the applications and directing the appeal to be posted for early hearing. While so, the first respondent herein suppressing those

facts viz., the refusal to grant injunction and stay by the High Court in S.A. No. 465/98, the order vacating interim injunction in O.S. No. 49/98.

filed the suit in O.S. No. 254/99 before the District Munsif, Virudhunagar. The earlier two suits viz., O.S. No. 49/98 and 183/98 were laid only

before the District Munsif, Sattur, which alone had jurisdiction. The temple is situate only within the jurisdiction of the Sattur Munsif. Thus

suppressing the earlier proceedings, the first respondent herein filed a suit before the District Munsif, Virudhunagar in O.S. No. 254/99. In that suit,

he did not choose to add the parties who were concerned in the earlier suits viz., O.S. Nos. 49/98 and 188/98, but simply impleaded the Assistant

Commissioner, Virudhunagar and Joint Commissioner, Sivaganga. The Assistant Commissioner, Virudhunagar had nothing to do in the matter.

By suppressing all these, the first respondent herein obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A. No. 705 of 1999 in O.S. No. 254/99 on the

file of the District Munsif, Virudhunagar. The prayer asked for is for an injunction against persons from taking over the management as the heir of

one Ramasamy Poosari. The persons, who will be actually affected are not made parties.

Learned District Munsif passed an order without even applying his mind. The said suit is filed against the Assistant Commissioner and the Joint

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board without any notice. The order of injunction passed is thus in a mechanical

manner. The gist of the plaintiff''s case is not taken into consideration. There is not even any attempt to see whether the Court will have jurisdiction.

The order does not give out any reason therefore. Thus, we find that the first respondent herein is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. This

is a clear case of abuse of process of law.

In the decision reported in A. Chinnarajan Vs. N. S. Subbaiyah and others, and 1999 2 CTC 713 (Rijhwani, H.H. v. N. Venkat Ramani) it has

been held that while granting ex parte interim orders, reasons must be recorded by the Court. But, in this case on hand, there are absolutely no

reasons stated by the lower court for the grant of injunction. In a case where a writ petition was filed claiming same reliefs after five days of

dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition, it was held by this Court in S. Mohan Sambasivam Vs. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chepak,

Madras-5 and 2 others, that it is a clear abuse of process of Court. In yet another case, where a suit for permanent injunction was still pending, the

filing of another suit for the same relief was held to be an abuse of process of Court. ( 1999 I MLJ 179). In the decision reported in 1997-2-L.W.

761, it is held that the Court is bound to prevent such actions being continued. The decision reported in 1999-2-MLJ. 277 (Moderator, Church of

South India, C.S.I. Centre, Chennai v. J.S. Kingsley), is for the position that filing of suit on the same cause of action for the same relief by different

person at the instance of the same person would amount to abuse of process of Court. The Apex Court has held in the decision reported in K.K.

Modi Vs. K.N. Modi and Others, that relegation, whether or not barred by respondent judicata, if manifests from the pleadings amounts to abuse

of process of Court and that Court has discretion to strike out the pleadings on being satisfied of there being no chance of success in the suit.

Process of Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be misused or abused. It is the duty of the Court to prevent improper use

of its machinery. The Court has to see that it is not used as a means of oppression, and the process of litigation is free from vexatiousness. The

categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process would depend upon the relevant circumstances. But, it has to

be judged from the angle of interest of justice and public policy.

As held in the decision reported in 1999-3-L.W. 471 (Union of India v. R. Karthikai Rajan and others), when the facts are identical, the basis

of the claim is identical, then it is a clear case of abuse of process of court. The Apex Court has also held in Orissa State Financial Corporation

and Another Vs. Hotel Jogendra, that dilatory tactics adopted by protracting the litigation would amount to abuse of process of Court.

Here in this case on hand, there was already a litigation with reference to which the matter has reached the High Court by way of Second

Appeal, wherein interim order has been passed, vacating the injunction. Subsequently, another suit has been filed and the first respondent could not

get any interim order. Thereafter, he thinks of the idea of filing of suit in a court which has nothing to do at all with the matter and without

impleading the party really affected, files a suit and obtains an order of injunction. It clearly amounts to abuse of process of court. Such tendency

on the part of the litigant should be put down with strong hands. Hence, I am of the view that as there is a blatant abuse of process of court

resulting in miscarriage of justice, it eminently satisfies the parameters for stepping in under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the result, the Civil

Revision Petition is allowed, quashing the order passed by the District Munsif Virudhunagar in I.A. No. 705/99 in O.S. No. 254/99 on 20.8.1999.

Since I am satisfied that the suit in O.S. No. 254/99 is an abuse of process of Court, I order that the same shall be struck off and expelled from the

File. Consequently, the connected CMPs. will stand closed.