Madras High Court
T.J.Eswari vs T.J.Ramakrishnan on 18 October, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)No.4183 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4183 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.23225 of 2024
1. T.J.Eswari
2. T.J.Vijayalakshmi
3. Kalavathi Kumaresan
4. N.T.Sadatcharam .. Petitioners
Vs
T.J.Ramakrishnan .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 22.11.2022
in I.A.No.9410 of 2018 in O.S.No.2176 of 2018 on the file of XIV
Assistant Court (FAC), (I.C. XIII Assistant Judge), City Civil Court at
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
C.R.P.(PD)No.4183 of 2024
For Petitioners : Dr.C.Ravichandran
for Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order of the XIV
Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai in I.A.No.9410 of 2018 in
O.S.No.2176 of 2018 dated 22.11.2022.
2. The civil revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit.
O.S.No.2176 of 2018 was filed for the following reliefs:
“(a) Permanent injunction to restrain the
Defendants 1 to 4 or their men, agents, servants,
assigns or anybody claiming through them from
making any means of encroachments or causing any
violations over the plaintiff's rights in respect of the
common amenities and areas available in the building
of the suit property.
(b) Permanent injunction to restrain the
defendants 1 to 4 or their men, agents, servants,
assigns or anybody claiming through them from in
anyway preventing the plaintiff from restoring the
pipe line connections for his flat portion to the 5 big
concrete common water tanks in the suit property.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The parties are closely related. The cause of action for the suit is
that the water supply to the plaintiff's flat was allegedly cut off by the
defendants. The specific allegation is against the 1 st and 4th defendants.
The plaintiff alleges that when he attempted to get water supply restored,
the 1st and 4th defendants prevented him from doing the same.
4. On being served with the summons, the defendants took out an
application for rejection of the plaint. According to them, the suit in
O.S.No.2176 of 2018 has the same cause of action as the previous suit in
O.S.No.2089 of 2014 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court at
Chennai. The defendants pleaded that O.S.No.2089 of 2014 was
compromised on 26.08.2015 and thereafter, an illusionary cause of action
has been created by the plaintiff to file the present suit (O.S.No.2176 of
2018). The specific plea was that there was no cause of action as the
matter had been settled as per the memorandum of compromise that was
entered into between the parties in O.S.No.2089 of 2014 and the issue is
governed by the principles of resjudicata. The learned trial Judge received
a counter from the plaintiff and proceeded to dismiss the application on
22.11.2022. Hence, the revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard Dr.C.Ravichandran for Mr.S.D.Venkateswaran for the
civil revision petitioners.
6. Dr.C.Ravichandran argues that the cause of action for the
present suit is same as the cause of action in O.S.No.2089 of 2014 on the
file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai. He invites my
attention to the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 11.09.2015 and
states that as a compromise award had been passed by the Lok Adalat on
11.09.2015, the present suit is liable to be rejected. After recording the
compromise memo that had been entered into by the plaintiff and the
defendants, to file a fresh suit is an abuse of process of Court. He draws
my attention to paragraph nos. 11 and 12 of the plaint in O.S.No.2176 of
2018 to argue that it is a classic case of re-litigation and does not deserve
the benefit of trial.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions of
Dr.C.Ravichandran.
8. A reading of the plaint goes to show that the plaintiff and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendants are occupants of separate apartments constructed over the suit
schedule mentioned property. They have been having dispute from 2014
as regards the enjoyment of the common areas. Due to the close
relationship between the parties, they had entered into a compromise on
26.08.2015 on the following terms:
“2. It is agreed and confirmed that all the
parties have a common right to enjoy all the common
areas including the gates, sump, open space available
and parking space in the suit property.
3. None of the parties shall prevent any other
parties from using the common areas including the
gates, sump, open space and parking space available
in the suit property.
4. None of the parties shall remove the gates or
any structures or construct any new structure or walls
in the suit property without the consent of all the
co-owners of the suit property. ”
9. The plaint proceeds that after the compromise had been arrived
at between the parties, the defendants had cut off the water supply which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was available to his flat from the Corporation of Chennai. In addition, the
plaint states that the defendants have prevented the plaintiff from
enjoying the water supply from “common five big water tanks” on
22.03.2018, when the plaintiff and his family members were absent from
the suit property. This shows that the cause of action for the present suit
commenced after the compromise had been recorded in the year
2015.
10. In matters relating to rejection of the plaint, I have to take the
averments made in the plaint to be true. This is because it is a plea in
demurrer. If the averments made in the plaint are taken to be true, then I
have to accept that on 22.03.2018, the water supply to the plaintiff's
apartment was cut off by the defendants. This cause of action being a
new one, the plaintiff is always entitled to approach the Court in order to
agitate the said issue.
11. With respect to the plea of resjudicata, it requires a party
taking that plea to mark the plaint, written statement, issues and the
judgment in the previous suit as exhibits to the subsequent suit. This is
because under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is barred from trying the same issue, which has already been tried by the
Court of competent jurisdiction, on an earlier occasion. The very terms of
Section 11 and its application shows that it requires a written statement
to be pleaded in the subsequent suit pleading resjudicata and evidence to
be let in in order to substantiate the said plea. When there are triable
issues, the issue of rejection of the plaint on the ground of resjudicata will
not arise.
12. Since the cause of action in the present suit is subsequent to the
one which had been settled by the parties in the year 2015, I cannot deem
it to be illusionary. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Judge
does not require any interference.
13. At this stage, Dr.C.Ravichandran pleads that the parties are
close relatives and in case the matter is referred to mediation, there is
every possibility of settlement. The learned XIV Assistant Judge, City
Civil Court at Chennai shall enquire with the parties if they are willing to
refer the matter for mediation. In case they express their willingness, the
learned trial Judge shall refer the parties for settling the matter through
mediation considering that they are close relatives.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. The civil revision petition stands dismissed with the above
observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
18.10.2024
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
XIV Assistant Court (FAC),
(I.C. XIII Assistant Judge),
City Civil Court at Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
kj
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
