Judgment :- The revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.240 of 2007, on the file of District Munsif, Ponneri. .2. The defendants 1 to 3 in the suit have filed the present revision. The first respondent has filed the above said suit against the revision petitioners as defendants 1 to 3 and the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ponneri as defendants 4 and 5, for declaration that the suit property belonged to the Village Chavadi, which is gramanatham land and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 4 and 5, viz., the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ponneri to cancel the patta bearing No.783 standing in the name of the revision petitioners and for permanent injunction against the revision petitioners. 3. The schedule of property in the suit relates to the lands comprised in Survey No.423/2 measuring an extent of 0.15 cents, which is stated to be gramanatham chavadi originally belonged to Government and situated at Sholavaram Firka, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The said suit was filed on the basis that the first respondent has been in possession of the said property for 10 years, and running a School without interference from any one. Further, the plaintiff has stated that he has handed over the property to the Village Panchayat for putting up a Primary Health Centre and the defendants, who are the revision petitioners are influential persons in the local area and have created forged documents and misrepresented before the Revenue authorities and obtained patta in favour of one Shanmuga Chetty, the father of the revision petitioners. It is also stated that the revision petitioners have been trying to prevent the putting up of the Primary Health Centre. Further, the plaintiff states that the said Shanmuga Chetty has executed a settlement deed on 30.09.2002, in favour of the revision petitioners which, according to the plaintiff, is not valid in law, since he had no right, title, interest over the property. Further, the plaintiff Sangam along with the Villagers gave a representation to the Revenue authorities on 28.06.2006 to cancel the patta issued to the revision petitioners. According to the plaintiff Sangam, the revision petitioners in collusion with the Revenue authorities have attempted to alienate the suit property in March,2007. Further, the plaintiff Sangam along with the Villagers gave a representation to the Revenue authorities on 28.06.2006 to cancel the patta issued to the revision petitioners. According to the plaintiff Sangam, the revision petitioners in collusion with the Revenue authorities have attempted to alienate the suit property in March,2007. With the above said pleadings, the first respondent has filed the above said suit for the relief as stated above. 4. It is also seen that the first respondent has filed I.A.No.976 of 2007 under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue in representative capacity, in which notice has been ordered and the said notice has already been published in the newspapers on 26.07.2007 and the suit is pending before the District Munsif Court, Ponneri. .5. According to the petitioners, the suit is an abuse of process of law. The suit property originally belonged to the grandparents of the petitioners, who had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 21.02.1928, registered on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Arani, Chengalpet. After the death of their grandparents, the property devolved upon the father of the petitioners and the petitioners father during his life time settled the property in favour of the revision petitioners. The Revenue authorities have also granted patta and the petitioners have been in continuous possession. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that one S.Gandhi, filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.33181 of 2005, to consider his representation dated 29.09.2005, on the basis that the property which is the subject matter of the suit viz., O.S.No.240 of 2007, is a public water tank and that the revision petitioners are encroachers and they are to be removed. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Ponneri, who is the 5th defendant in the suit, it was stated that at the time of issuance of patta to the petitioners, no body objected, apart from denying that the place was a public tank. No public tank was in existence in Survey No.423/2 as alleged by the writ petitioner therein. It was, after taking into consideration of the said counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, the Honble Division Bench, by order dated 03.08.2006, dismissed the writ petition and even the review petition filed by the said writ petitioner was dismissed on 06.09.2006. No public tank was in existence in Survey No.423/2 as alleged by the writ petitioner therein. It was, after taking into consideration of the said counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, the Honble Division Bench, by order dated 03.08.2006, dismissed the writ petition and even the review petition filed by the said writ petitioner was dismissed on 06.09.2006. It is the further case of the petitioners that after the said public interest litigation was dismissed, at the instance of the said Gandhi, one Balan, the first respondent herein, who is stated to be the Secretary of the plaintiff Sangam has filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 06.08.2006 for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the revision petitioners on the basis that there is a night school existing in the property for the past 10 years. After the revision petitioners have filed the counter, the authorities have called for a report from the Tahsildar, who in his proceedings dated 14.03.2007, enclosed all the documents and it was after considering the same, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by order dated 26.03.2007, orally rejected the appeal preferred by the said Balan stating that a detailed order will follow. 7. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the first respondent has filed some other suit in O.S.SR.No.4388 to 4391 of 2006, seeking the same relief, which is made in the present suit and the said suit was not pursued. Therefore, it is stated by the revision petitioners that they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property and accordingly, the present suit filed by the first respondent Sangam is an abuse of process of law. 8. Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me to the affidavit as well as the counter affidavit filed in the public interest litigation in W.P.No.33181 of 2005 and the ultimate order passed by the Honble First Bench of this Court dated 03.08.2006. According to her, the 5th respondent, Tahsildar has filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Division Bench of this Court categorically stating that there is no tank in Survey No.423/2, which is the subject matter of the suit and patta has been granted in favour of the revision petitioners. According to her, the 5th respondent, Tahsildar has filed a detailed counter affidavit before the Division Bench of this Court categorically stating that there is no tank in Survey No.423/2, which is the subject matter of the suit and patta has been granted in favour of the revision petitioners. She would further submit that it was after filing the counter affidavit by the Tahsildar, Ponneri in the said writ petition, which was in June, 2006, the first respondent Sangam got registered on 28.07.2006 and in fact, after registration, the first respondent Sangam has filed an appeal before the 5th respondent to cancel the patta granted in favour of the petitioners. She would also submit that the first respondent has filed some other suit for the same relief in O.S.SR.Nos.4383 to 4391 of 2006, which have not been pursued and according to her, the present suit which has been filed by the first respondent Sangam for the same relief, is an abuse of process of law. .9. On the other hand, Mr.S.M.Loganathan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff Sangam would submit that the plaintiff has filed a substantive suit for declaration in respect of 0.15 cents of lands in Survey No.423/2. While in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition filed by some other person as a Public Interest Litigation, the Tahsildar has only dealt with a part of Survey No.423/4 to the extent of 720 sq.ft. or 1.75 cents and therefore, the civil Court has to decide as to what is the extent to which the revision petitioners are entitled, even assuming that patta has been issued in their favour and therefore, the suit can never be said to be an abuse of process of law. He would also submit that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief under any of the clauses in Order VI Rule 16, C.P.C. dealing with striking of plaint pleadings. It is his further contention that none of the grounds raised by the revision petitioners is covered under any one of the clauses in Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. which relates to the rejection of the plaint. According to him, the property which is the subject matter of the suit is different from the property concerned in the writ petition filed as a public interest litigation. According to him, the property which is the subject matter of the suit is different from the property concerned in the writ petition filed as a public interest litigation. He would further submit that even assuming otherwise, the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition has only recorded the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar and also the submission made by the Government Pleader which relates only to 720 sq.ft. and therefore, the decision of the Division Bench made in the writ petition cannot be a bar for the present suit and the suit cannot be said to be abuse of process of Court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 11. It is seen from the certificate of registration in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff Sangam was registered as a Society on 27. 2006. One Gandhi filed W.P.No.33181 of 2005 as Public Interest Litigation by showing the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ponneri as respondents 1 and 2 and the present revision petitioners as respondents 3 to 5 for direction against the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action based on the representations dated 9. 2005 and 29. 2005. The said Gandhi has made it clear in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the father of the revision petitioners had obtained a patta in respect of 15 cents of lands of land in survey No.423/2 by misrepresentation and settled the property in favour of the revision petitioners and it was after coming to know about the same, he (Gandhi) along with other villagers made a representations on 9. 2005 and 29. 2005 to the respondents 1 and 2 therein, viz., the District Collector, Tiruvallur and the Tahsildar, Ponneri to take immediate action on the basis that the said extent of 15 cents of land comprised in survey No.423/2 is a public tank, used for reserving rain water from time immemorial. 12. It is seen that the revision petitioners herein filed their counter affidavit narrating the details as to how their father got the property as gramanatham and enjoyed the same from 1928 onwards and according to the revision petitioners, the said property never formed part of public tank at any point of time. .13. 12. It is seen that the revision petitioners herein filed their counter affidavit narrating the details as to how their father got the property as gramanatham and enjoyed the same from 1928 onwards and according to the revision petitioners, the said property never formed part of public tank at any point of time. .13. The Tahsildar who was the second respondent in the writ petition has also filed a counter affidavit clearly stating that survey No.423/4 to an extent of 720 sq.ft. originally was a village chettinatham and during natham survey and settlement scheme proceedings, the old survey No.423/4 was subdivided into 423/2, 660, 661, 662, 663 and 664 and pattas were issued to the then enjoyers by the Special Tahsildar under natham survey and settlement scheme, Ponneri during 1995 based on the enjoyment and it was, in that way, the father of the revision petitioners was granted patta in the year 1995 which was subsequently given to the revision petitioners by the deed of settlement and patta was also issued to them. It is also clearly stated in the counter affidavit by the Tahsildar that on the northern side of survey No.423/2A to 2F which was originally survey No.423/4, a small pit is found in survey No.423/1, classified as gramanatham due to digging of soil by the people living in the surrounding area for their own use. It is stated in the counter affidavit that no public tank was in existence in survey No.423/2 to be used for preserving rain water. It is further stated that the enquiry with the public revealed that there was a chavadi (small building) used by the revenue officials for a long time, in survey No.422 belonging to the Highways Department, classified as GNT Road in the village accounts, on the western side of the property belonging to the petitioners in survey No.423/2. It is further stated that the enquiry with the public revealed that there was a chavadi (small building) used by the revenue officials for a long time, in survey No.422 belonging to the Highways Department, classified as GNT Road in the village accounts, on the western side of the property belonging to the petitioners in survey No.423/2. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that only after conducting field enquiry, pattas were issued during natham survey and settlement proceedings in the year 1928 and the petitioners grandfather purchased a portion of the land in survey No.423/4 classified as Chettinatham and certain portion of the said survey number was in the enjoyment of the petitioners family from 1928 and patta was also issued by the Special Tahsildar in respect of 606 sq.metres (0.15 cents) in survey No.423/2 in the year 1995 to the petitioners father and there was no objection raised by anyone of the villagers at that time. It is also clearly stated that there was no chavadi or public tank in existence in the land in question in survey No.423/2 belonging to the revision petitioners and patta was issued based on their enjoyment during natham survey. .14. After filing of the said counter affidavit, when the matter came up for hearing, the Honble First Bench of this Court, by order dated 8. 2006, passed the following order: ."2. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, makes a statement that the land in question is a patta land belonging to respondents 3 to 5 and that it is not a Government poromboke land and that there is no public tank in the said land, as alleged by the petitioner." 15. It is not in dispute that the review petition filed against the said order was also dismissed subsequently on 9. 2006. It was thereafter, the present suit came to be filed by the first respondent Sangam on behalf of the villagers. As per the averments made in the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner Gandhi has stated that he has filed representations not only on his behalf but also on behalf of the villagers. 2006. It was thereafter, the present suit came to be filed by the first respondent Sangam on behalf of the villagers. As per the averments made in the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner Gandhi has stated that he has filed representations not only on his behalf but also on behalf of the villagers. After the counter affidavit was filed and based on the statement made by the learned Government Pleader, the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the property is not a Government poramboke land and there is no public tank in existence in the said land. Therefore, the said decision of the Honble Division Bench has become final. The question to be considered in this case is as to whether in spite of the decision given by the Division Bench, the present suit can be maintained and whether the same can be termed as abuse of process of Court under Order VI Rule 16, C.P.C. 16. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanjan Nair Sivaraman Nair vs. Narayanan Nair, reported in 2004(1) CTC 628, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, while dealing with section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2, CPC, it was held that section 11 operates as a bar of trial if the said matter was directly and substantially in issue and finally decided earlier, and therefore the said judgment may not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the first respondent/plaintiff was not a party to the Public Interest Litigation before this Court. 17. Mr.S.M.Loganathan, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in N.Srinivasa Rao vs. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and others 2006(4) SCC 214 to say that any observation made by the writ court cannot bind the parties in a properly constituted suit where the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated. Mr.S.M.Loganathan, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in N.Srinivasa Rao vs. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act and others 2006(4) SCC 214 to say that any observation made by the writ court cannot bind the parties in a properly constituted suit where the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated. In that case, while dealing with the abovesaid Act, when a submission was made by the counsel as a grievance that an observation made by the writ court should not affect the proper adjudication of the civil suit, the Supreme Court has clarified by stating that if any civil action is taken in furtherance of the right under the said Act, the observation made by the writ Court will not be relied upon in coming to a decision in the suit. The said decision is not helpful to the case on hand. 18. This Court in the judgment dated 210. 2007 in C.R.P.No.3299 of 2007 rendered in the case of Managing Director, M/s.Makkal Tholai Thodarpu Kuzhuman Ltd., vs. V.Muthulakshmi, while dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chandar Rai and others 2003(6) SCC 675 , wherein the Supreme Court while holding that there is no straightjacket formula or rigid rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ultimately held that the High Court has to decide based on the facts and circumstances of the given case. In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in that case is relevant which runs as follows: "Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a strait-jacket formula or rigid rules. Not less than often, the High Court would be faced with a dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. Not less than often, the High Court would be faced with a dilemma. If it intervenes in pending proceedings there is bound to be delay in termination of proceedings. If it does not intervene, the error of the moment may earn immunity from correction. The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where a stitch in time would save nine. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge". 19. Applying the said ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovesaid case, especially in the circumstance that the Division Bench of this Court had already dealt with the same issue and held that the subject matter of the suit is not a chavadi poramboke land on the basis of the categorical stand taken by the Tahsildar in his counter affidavit and also in the circumstance that the said writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the villagers, I am of the considered view that the filing of the present suit is only an abuse of process of court. The order of the Division Bench in dismissing the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation holding that it is not a poramboke land can never be stated as a passing observation, but it is a binding decision since the same has been passed after considering the detailed counter affidavit filed by the parties and after hearing the counsel for both parties. The first respondent/plaintiff may not be a party to the said proceedings, but the first respondent has filed the present suit only on behalf of the villagers as it is seen from the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC seeking permission to sue on behalf of the villagers. The first respondent/plaintiff may not be a party to the said proceedings, but the first respondent has filed the present suit only on behalf of the villagers as it is seen from the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC seeking permission to sue on behalf of the villagers. Hence, there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the Public Interest Litigation arose on the same analogy and in such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that it is not open to the revision petitioners to invoke Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint is not sustainable. Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which speak about the cases where there is non-disclosure of cause of action, the relief claimed is undervalued, the suit appears to be barred by law, etc. in the following terms: Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. "11. Rejection of Plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: .(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action; .(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; .(c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written on the paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff does not make good the deficiency within the time, if any, granted by the Court; .(d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law .(e) Where it is not filed in duplicate. .(f) Where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule (9). [Provided that the time fixed by the Court for correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.] 20. On the other hand, Order 6 Rule 16 CPC would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case which runs as follows: Order 6 Rule 16: "16. On the other hand, Order 6 Rule 16 CPC would squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case which runs as follows: Order 6 Rule 16: "16. Striking out pleadings.- the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out of amended any matter in any pleading .(a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or, vexatious, or .(b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit, or .(c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. On the above said factual position that a decision has already been arrived at by this Court which has become final, the filing of the suit is only an abuse of process of Court. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the first respondent has no substance at all. Therefore, the C.R.P. stands allowed and the suit in O.S.No.240 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Ponneri stands struck off. No costs.