Judgment : The instant proceeding is a glaring example of the abuse of the process of the court by the plaintiff/respondent Selvambal alias Parimala-nayagi and other members of a family, their common ancestors being Veerappa Goundar. Veerappan’s wife Manonmaniammal had five children viz., Ramaswamy alias Malayalathan, Dhanapakiyam alias Thaiyanayaki, Krishnammal, Manjini and Kannan alias Vairakannou. Dhanapakiyam has three children viz., Vazhmuni, Kannammal alias Valliammal and Ammayyee alias Rathinammal and Krishnammal has two children viz., Sakrapani and Selvambal alias Parimalanay-agi. .2. Krishnammal filed O.S.No.261 of 1970 before the Principal District Munsif’s Court, Pondich-erry impleading Ramaswamy and Manjini Naicker as defendants 2 and 3 and Lakshamanaswamy, the present petitioner, who is a purchaser and who is in possession of a property transferred by Ramaswamy and Manjini Naicker, for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed with costs on 210. 1973. She preferred an appeal, being A.S.No.19 of 1974, which was also dismissed on 24. 1976 with costs. With a change in the spelling of her name (Krishnammal spelt her name ‘Kichennammallee’, the French spelling) along with the two daughters of her sister Dhanapakiyam viz., Valliammal alias Kannammal and Ammayee alias Rathinambal, filed O.S.No.396 of 1983 impleading this time only the petitioner and Ramaswamy calling them Ramaswamy Goundar and Lakshmana Goundar and sought the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 28. 1952 was null and void. This suit was dismissed with costs on 5. 3.1984. She along with others preferred an appeal in A.S.No.205 of 1984 against the dismissal of the suit. This appeal also was dismissed with costs on 112. 1990. A second appeal was preferred before this Court, being S.A.No.525 of 1991, which was dismissed on 24. 1991. Krishnammal was given up, but her daughter Selvambal started the third round by filing O.S.No.413 of 1991 and adding in the category of defendants besides Ramaswamy and La-kshmanan/Laksharnanaswamy, six more defendants and sought injunction. Her suit was dismissed with costs on 18. 1991. She preferred an appeal in A.S.No.161 of 1991. The same also was dismissed with costs on 210. 1992. She, Selvambal started the fourth round by filing a suit in O.S.No.250 of 1992 naming as many as 18 defendants including Ramaswamy and Lakshmanan alias Laksha-manaswamy seeking division of the suit properties into four portions and allotting one-fourth share to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 each. 3. The same also was dismissed with costs on 210. 1992. She, Selvambal started the fourth round by filing a suit in O.S.No.250 of 1992 naming as many as 18 defendants including Ramaswamy and Lakshmanan alias Laksha-manaswamy seeking division of the suit properties into four portions and allotting one-fourth share to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 each. 3. Ramaswamy, Lakshmanan and Selvaraj arc before this Court in C.R.P.No.3481 of 1992, which has arisen out of a proceeding in I. A.No.2225 of 1992 in the said suit C.S.No.250 of 1992. After filing the suit, it appears, Selvambal filed a petition for injunction in I.A.No.2225 of 1992. Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry has ordered interim injunction. Challenging mainly on the ground that all earlier litigations have been suppressed and while the appeal, A.S.No.161 of 1991 arising out of C.S.No.413 of 1991 was pending, it appears, the respondents colluded with each other and laid the foundation of the fourth round of litigation and obtained after filing the suit interim order of injunction. .4. In the course of the hearing of the revision petition, it was pointed out to me that for the reason of the dismissal of the earlier suits, the instant suit may not be maintainable. After admitting the petition for hearing, I ordered issue of notice to the respondents and also that the petitioners should file a petition for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the trial court and directed the trial court to dispose of the said petition after notice to the plaintiff. The petitioners herein accordingly filed in the trial court a petition seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of maintainability. 5. Following the above direction, the court below has passed the following order: “Originally, the matter was posted for pronouncing orders on 12. 1993. Whereas, a reference due to the said demise of a sitting Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and as per the directions of the Chief Judge, Pondicherry, the pronouncement of this order was deferred to this date. Whereas on 12. 1993, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff made an endorsement on the counter statement that the same was not pressed and that without prejudice to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under O.7, Rules 11 and 13, C.P.C., the petition may be allowed. Whereas on 12. 1993, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff made an endorsement on the counter statement that the same was not pressed and that without prejudice to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under O.7, Rules 11 and 13, C.P.C., the petition may be allowed. Recording the above endorsement on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the merits of the pleadings on both sides. Accordingly, in pursuance of the above endorsement, the petition is allowed, but the parties to bear their own costs.” 6. The petitioners herein have contended that with the coming to an end of the suit O.S.No.250 of 1992, had the trial court not entertained the plea of the plaintiff/respondent on the counter-statement that the plaint was not pressed and without prejudice to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the petition objecting to the maintainability of the suit filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, should have been allowed. 7. As a result of the above, now a fresh suit in O.S.No.314 of 1993 has been filed by Valliammal alias Kannammal, the daughter of Krishnammal’s sister cousin and/sister of Selvambal alias Pari-malanayagi for a declaration that the judgment and decrecdated 210. 1973 passed in O.S.No.261 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff. .8. What is that the events and the conduct of the plaintiff party tell has to be understood with reference to such laws of procedure which ordinarily are ignored, but assume importance when a certain party decides to abuse the process of the court. The elaborate procedure of presentation of a plaint in court before admitting the plaint as engrafted under O.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not a mere formality, but a body of rules that arc required to be used to ensure that no unfair advantage is derived by resorting to vexatious and frivolous litigations. One such rule is prescribed for rejecting a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law [See Rule 11 of O.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure]. One such rule is prescribed for rejecting a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law [See Rule 11 of O.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure]. When, however, a plaint for the reason of the suppression of any material fact has escaped rejection under this rule and the defendant is called upon to file the written statement another set of rules providing for ascertaining whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied, interrogatories, etc., and settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Rule 2 of O.14 of the Code of Civil Procedure is significant in the sense that it says that a court should ordinarily pronounce judgment on all issues, but where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit and the court is of the opinion that the case or any part there of may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first it relates to, [1] the jurisdiction of the court; or [2] a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose, may postpone the settlement of other issues until that issue has been determined. 9. Although in the Code of Procedural law, a substantive rule of law is enshrined, which is generally called the principle or doctrine of res judicata under Sec. 11 of the Code, which says as follows: “No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such court. Explanation I: The expression” former suit “ shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation I: The expression” former suit “ shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto. Explanation II: For the purpose of this section the competence of a court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such court. Explanation III: The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one parly and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly by the other. Explanation IV: Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explanation V: Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree,, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused. Explanation VI: Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating. Explanation VII: The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this sec. to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree. Explanation VIII: An issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.” 10. Explanation VIII: An issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.” 10. There is the other rule of procedure as well as of substance in O.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which says that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action, may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits, except with the leave of the court to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted for, if a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. In other words, every suit must include the whole of the claim, which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. 11.The entire story of repeated trial of the issueas to the title of the petitioners here in and the validity of the sale deed under which they have been claiming title and continued litigation for the relief of a decree to avoid the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners herein by a set of the members of same family of the plaintiffs, leave no manner of doubt as to the intention of the plaintiffs that they have by all means tried to continue their attach upon the title of the petitioners herein in respect of a property which they are not ready to give up, even if this attempt requires to ignore the decrees of the court or to suppress material facts, and have started a fresh round of litigation and obtain some sort of interim order. 12. It was in this background that one can take notice of the endorsement of the plaintiff/respondent that if leave is granted to sue afresh on the same cause of action, she shall have no objection to the rejection of the plaint. 12. It was in this background that one can take notice of the endorsement of the plaintiff/respondent that if leave is granted to sue afresh on the same cause of action, she shall have no objection to the rejection of the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge was duty bound before granting such a permission to see that O.23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a discretion to the plaintiff to abandon the whole or any part of his claim. But if he seeks permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim, the court is required to be satisfied that the [1] suit must fail by reason of some formal defect or [2] that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. The learned Subordinate Judge has completely ignored the above rule and committed a serious error of jurisdiction in this regard. It is only on account of the casual approach of the court, that an astute litigant has successfully devised proceedings after proceedings. Unless care is taken by the courts, the chances of the abuse of the process always exist. It is not difficult to smell something foul in the plaintiffs conduct of repeated litigations for the same cause of action and to notice contrivance in the suit where either the name of the party is added or the spelling of any name is changed and besides a relief which has already been denied, another relief is introduced and thus a new look is given to the suit, which is substantially the same as old one. It is always better to be cautious and vigilant than careless and indifferent. There shall be no loss of lime of the court if the plaints are carefully examined at the threshold and compliance of the procedural as well as the substantial requirements of law is insisted upon because an admission of a plaint, which should not be admitted, consumes many working days of the court and in addition there of, brings discredit to the institution of law itself. 13. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, I am satisfied that the civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.3481 of 1992 has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed. C.R.P.No.1240 of 1993, however, is allowed to the extent that rejection of the plaint is final and without any leave to the plaintiff/respondent to sue afresh on the same cause of action. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in both the civil revision petitions.