Judgment :- The respondent in I.A.No.814/2002 and plaintiff in O.S.No.184/1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.814/2002 dated 1.11.2002 as per which the plaint in O.S.No.184/1999 was ordered to be rejected by allowing the said petition. 2. The parties are arrayed as per the rankings in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.184/1999 for permanent injunction that his possession of the suit property should not be disturbed by the defendants who are brothers. The plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title to item No.1 of the suit properties as per the registered sale deed dated 5.5.79 from Perumal's son Irulappan and others and further stating that Perumal purchased the said property in 1967. As regards item No.2 of the suit properties, the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title to the said property in view of the purchase as per the registered sale deed dated 27.8.88 from one Iyyanadar's son Muthiah and further stating that the said Muthiah purchased the said property as per the registered sale deed dated 7.10.70 from the sons of Veeraputhira Pillai and Irulappa Pillai's son and others. The suit was filed on 23.6.99. Even before filing of the written statement, the defendants filed I.A.No.814/2002 under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. to reject the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit O.S.No.274/94 for declaration and injunction in respect of the very same suit property which resulted in a decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by the defendants in A.S.No.60/96, the Sub-Court, Virudhunagar allowed the appeal as per the judgment dated 27.6.97. No Second Appeal was filed against the said judgment. The plaintiff in the previous suit also filed I.A.No.579/99 in which temporary injunction was granted as per order dated 30.9.99. The defendants preferred C.M.A.No.29/99 which was allowed on 17.4.2002 dismissing the injunction petition. Therefore, the suit O.S.No.184/99 is not maintainable which is between the same parties with respect to the same properties and so, prayed to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. 4. The defendants preferred C.M.A.No.29/99 which was allowed on 17.4.2002 dismissing the injunction petition. Therefore, the suit O.S.No.184/99 is not maintainable which is between the same parties with respect to the same properties and so, prayed to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. 4. The petition was contested by filing counter reiterating the stand taken by the plaintiff in the plaint about the title derived by the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties in view of the purchases set out above. It is further stated that the previous suit O.S.No.274/94 was filed for declaration and permanent injunction whereas the present suit is filed seeking only permanent injunction, since, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit properties on 22.6.99. 5. The Trial Court considering the case of both the parties and finding that the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the previous suit O.S.No.274/94 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties which is also the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.184/99 and though the plaintiff was successful in that suit, he lost his case in the appeal preferred by the defendants and no Second Appeal was filed against the judgment in the appeal and further stating that though the plaintiff got temporary injunction in I.A.No.529/99 in the said suit, such order was set aside in C.M.A.No.29/99 filed by the defendants and allowed the I.A.No.814/2002 ordering rejection of the suit O.S.No.184/99. The order is challenged by the plaintiff in this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. 7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the previous suit O.S.No.274/94 was for declaration and permanent injunction and the present suit O.S.No.184/99 is for permanent injunction and in view of the fact the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property on 22.6.99 and as such, under different cause of action and therefore, the rejection of the plaint by allowing the application in I.A.No.814/2002 is improper. 8. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that inasmuch as the parties in previous suit O.S.No.274/94 and the present suit O.S.No.184/99 and also the suit properties are the same and inasmuch as it was ultimately found that the plaintiff has no title and possession of the suit properties, the suit O.S.No.184/99 filed now for permanent injunction praying that he is in possession of the suit properties is without any basis and so, the plaint in O.S.No.184/99 is rightly ordered to be rejected by allowing the I.A.No.814/2002. In this regard, the learned counsel also submitted that in the previous suit O.S.No.274/94 temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.579/99 as per order dated 30.9.99. As per order dated 17.4.2002 the same was disallowed in C.M.A.No.29/99 filed by the defendants and as such, the plaintiff who is not in possession cannot claim to be in possession and in that view, the plaint in O.S.No.184/99 is ordered to be rejected, which requires no interference. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision is not maintainable as per Section 2, C.P.C. against the order filed for rejection of the plaint. In support of such contention, the learned counsel has relied on the following decisions: (i)RANIPET MUNICIPALITY, COMMISSIONER V. M.SHAMSHEERKHAN - ( 1997 (2) L.W. 761 ) (ii)VENI V.PERUMAL -( 2002 (4) CTC 686 ) (iii)K.S.GEETHA V. STANLEYBUCK AND ANOTHER -( 2002(3) CTC 477 )in which this Court has held:- "Code of Civil Procedure, Section 115 & 96. Rejection of plaint whether Appeal or Revision would lie. Nothing would be kept pending before Court after rejection of plaint. Order of rejection of plaint conclusively determines rights of parties. Decree is defined as to include rejection of plaint and Appeal lies from original decree. Appeal alone is maintainable against decree rejecting plaint. Revision is not maintainable against such decree. Decree shall be deemed to include rejection of plaint. Such decree would be original decree against which appeal alone would lie." (iv) SALEM CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, MOHANUR V. KUPPANNAN( 2003 M.L.J. 436) 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants the order of rejection of plaint has determined the rights of parties conclusively. Such rejection of the plaint is within the meaning of decree under Section 2, C.P.C. and appeal alone lies from the original decree. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants the order of rejection of plaint has determined the rights of parties conclusively. Such rejection of the plaint is within the meaning of decree under Section 2, C.P.C. and appeal alone lies from the original decree. Inasmuch as the appeal alone is maintainable against the decree rejecting the plaint, the revision filed against the order in I.A.No.814/2002 is not maintainable and against such an order, only appeal will lie. 11. As regards the merits of the case, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents the previous suit O.S.No.274/94 between the same parties also was in respect of the very same properties. The learned counsel for the respondents has taken through the plaint in both the suits which are also similar verbatim. Therefore, despite the fact the plaintiff lost his case in the previous suit O.S.No.274/94 filed for declaration and permanent injunction, has made another attempt in filing the suit O.S.No.184/99 though the previous suit after contest was decreed, the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed and no Second Appeal was filed. Similarly, in the said suit though the temporary injunction was granted, such order was set aside in C.M.A.No. 29/99. In the previous suit, the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties was found against him as well the possession of the suit properties. It follows the suit O.S.No.184/99 filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff suppressing the previous suit and other material facts is an abuse of process of law. Considering all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly ordered to reject the plaint in O.S.No.184/99 by allowing the I.A.No.814/2002. Such order does not call for interference and is to be confirmed. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs.