Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant to struck off the plaint in O.S.No:1089 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on the ground of abuse of process of law. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the defendant, the revision petitioner herein has got no right over the suit properties in view of the lease agreement dated 2. 1938 and consequently to grant an order of permanent injunction from alienating or creating any encumbrance of the suit properties and running the educational institutions within the premises of the suit properties. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though plaint copy was served on the revision petitioner along with the summons, he received a telegram from the plaintiffs claiming that they have obtained an order of injunction in the said suit restraining them from disturbing their possessions. Yet another telegram was also received by him stating that the possession of the plaintiffs is protected by an injunction order. However, in both the telegrams the I.A.,Number has not been furnished by the plaintiffs and copies of the I.A., was also not served on him. 4. On 19. 2003, the petitioner herein filed Vakalat and at that time it was found that the case bundle was missing. Thus without even serving copies of affidavit, petition in the I.A., and the order of injunction there were attempts made to dispossess the petitioner herein. On 110. 2003 he made a complaint to the Registrar of the City Civil Court, Chennai stating that the case papers were removed from the court with the connivance of the court staff and pursuant to the same, on 29. 2004 the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai ordered an enquiry and also passed orders for reconstruction of the files. Though the files were reconstructed and copies of the affidavit and petition in the I.A. was given to the petitioner, yet the order of injunction alleged to have been passed is yet to be furnished to the petitioner. .5. In the above background, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the finding of the enquiry as to the missing of case records should be called for and if necessary the persons responsible for destroying the original papers are liable to be prosecuted and punished by taking criminal action. .5. In the above background, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the finding of the enquiry as to the missing of case records should be called for and if necessary the persons responsible for destroying the original papers are liable to be prosecuted and punished by taking criminal action. According to the learned counsel, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint refers to a deed dated 2. 1938 and the same is characterised as a lease deed. Paragraphs 4,5, 6 and 7 also refers to the said document. The cause of action for the suit is also based upon the said lease document, since the very declaration has been sought for with respect to the said lease agreement. 6. Therefore, the counsel for the revision petitioner claims that the court below cannot entertain such a plaint which has been causally filed in total disregard to the Law of Pleadings. The document on the basis of which the plaint prayer is sought for is also not filed along with the plaint. It is also alleged that though A diary of the court below shows that notice was served in the I.A.No:14531 of 2003, actually no notice was served on him. Further though the petitioner filed caveat, the plaintiffs without serving notice to him obtained interim orders and till date a copy of the interim order is not made available to him. According to him there is a collusion in getting the ex party interim injunction pending the suit. 7. As there is an allegation of missing of case records, this court directed the Registry to send for the reconstructed records available with the City Civil Court. Since it is admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner himself that the case bundle has been ordered to be reconstructed and an enquiry has been ordered as to the missing of case records, I am of the opinion that if any case records are missing and could not be reconstructed, it will be a detriment only to the plaintiffs in proving their case and not to the defendant and in fact the defendant can take advantage of the same. Therefore, there cannot be any allegation of connivance or collusion in this respect with the court staff. So also the non filing of the lease agreement dated 2. Therefore, there cannot be any allegation of connivance or collusion in this respect with the court staff. So also the non filing of the lease agreement dated 2. 1938 by the plaintiffs, though it is alleged that the cause of action for the suit rests on this document. At the same time, it is also made clear that depending on the findings of the enquiry officer, necessary departmental action, as well as criminal action will be taken against the erring court staff. .8. Apart from that, though it is alleged that no notice was served in I.A.NO:14531 of 2003, being the application for interim injunction, at any point of time, and orders were obtained ex parte on 18. 2003 by deceit and misrepresentation and by playing a fraud, even though the the revision petitioner filed a caveat which was subsisting all along, it is seen from the diary extract of the bailiff that notice has been served on him on 18. 2003 itself. The very order granting interim injunction reads as follows: "18. 2003: Court notice served. Respondent-Caveator absent. No representation. Respondent called absent. Set ex-parte. Petition is allowed". Further, on 110. 2003 itself, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No:18666 of 2003 to suspend the order of interim injunction dated 18. 2003. He also filed I.A.No:18701 of 2003 on 110. 2003 to stay the operation of the order of injunction dated 18. 2003 till the disposal of the application in I.A.No:17580 of 2003 filed to set aside the said order. The said I.A.No:18701 of 2003 was ordered by granting a "status quo" on 210. 2003. Thus as on date the status quo continues and the revision petitioner is in possession of the suit properties and conducting educational institutions. It is also to be pointed out that pending the applications, the revision petitioner also took out I.A.No:17579 of 2003 to permit him to conduct the Star Nigh Programmes and various cultural programs to raise funds in aid of welfare institutions and obtained orders in its favour. 9. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to reject the plaint cannot be sustained since he has not substantiated any of one of the provisions contained in under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the Plaint. 9. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to reject the plaint cannot be sustained since he has not substantiated any of one of the provisions contained in under Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the Plaint. Considering the claim of both the parties and the long pendency of the proceedings before the trial court by taking out one after another applications, I am of the opinion that this revision has been filed only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings further. This CRP is of the year 2005 and thus all further proceedings in the lower court was stalled for more than two years. This CRP is a vexatious petition and clear abuse of process of this court since the petitioner has already filed petitions to set aside the injunction order and till then got order of status quo as well in another I.A., Therefore, this CRP is dismissed with a cost of Rs.3,000/=, out of which Rs.1,500/= shall be paid to the respondents/plaintiffs and Rs.1,500/= to the Honble the Chief Justice Relief Fund on or before 27. 2007. Registry is directed to inform this court whether the petitioner has paid the sum of Rs.1,500/= to the Honble The Chief Justice Relief Fund by then. 10. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.