ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 14-10-2008 and Sri G. Seena Kumar and Sri O. Kailasnath Reddy, the learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. Sri M. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that a suit for injunction simplicitor had been filed on the strength of the specific cause of action averred in the plaint and instead of numbering the suit certain queries had been raised and the plaint had been returned and though the queries had been answered, instead of numbering the plaint, the plaint had been rejected. Learned counsel would also maintain that the applicability or otherwise of Order 2 Rule 2 or Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure may have to be gone into at the appropriate stage and not before numbering the suit. Learned counsel would also maintain that none of the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure be made applicable to the facts of the case and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to number the suit, if otherwise, it is in order and to further proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 3. On the contrary, Sri G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 would maintain that except the 4th plaintiff joining as co- plaintiff in the present suit and the 3rd defendant, the subsequent purchaser being shown as one of the defendants, the subject matter and the parties in the prior suit in O.S.No. 166 of 2003 being the same, the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. The judgment and the decree in the prior suit had not been challenged by way of an appeal, and in a way had attained finality. Hence, there is no cause of action to file the present suit. Even otherwise, the suit is clearly barred by Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The counsel also pointed out to the relevant findings, which had been recorded in the previous suit, in this regard, and would maintain that this is a speculative and frivolous litigation which had been thought of by the plaintiffs only with a view to put forth the black mailing tactics. 4. The counsel also pointed out to the relevant findings, which had been recorded in the previous suit, in this regard, and would maintain that this is a speculative and frivolous litigation which had been thought of by the plaintiffs only with a view to put forth the black mailing tactics. 4. Sri O.Kailasnath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 would maintain that the 3rd respondent company had taken all the care to verify the documents before making the purchase. Learned counsel further would maintain that the suit was instituted on 25-6-2008. The counsel would also point out that the 1st plaintiff also had attested the document which is on the very next day on i.e. 26-6-2008. Learned counsel would also further point out several of the facts and would maintain that this litigation had been thought of just adding the 4th plaintiff as co-plaintiff only with a view to bring pressure on this bonafide purchaser to have settlement by making unlawful bargain. This is not a bonafide litigation, if such frivolous litigation to be permitted the 3rd respondent would be put to serious loss and hence, the rejection of the plaint being well justified this revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the order under challeng in the present Civil Revision Petition. 6. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order dated 30-7-2008 made in CFR O.S.S.R.No. 1864 & 1951 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganepalli, Kurnool District. 7. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the said unnumbered suit. The suit was filed praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, assignees, agents and such other persons in meddling with the Items No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property and for other appropriate reliefs. 7. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the said unnumbered suit. The suit was filed praying for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, assignees, agents and such other persons in meddling with the Items No. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property and for other appropriate reliefs. In the plaint, the cause of action had been specified as hereunder: "The cause of action for this suit arose when the suit in O.S.No. 166 of 2003 in between the plaintiffs and defendants 1,2 and 4 was disposed off on 30- 6-2007 holding that the plaintiffs herein and the 4th defendant are the joint family members of the suit schedule property and there was no partition or relinquishment among them in respect of the said property and when the 1st defendant fabricated sale deed dated 7-6-2008 in collusion with the 3rd defendant nominally and when the 2nd defendant is trying to execute another sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant and when the defendants 1 to 3 are trying to further fabricate certain documents and to change the physical features of the suit schedule property, in spite of notice dated 15-4-2008 and in spite of appeal made by the 1st plaintiff to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District vide appeal memorandum dated 21-7-2007 and on all such further dates are at Kotapadu village where the suit schedule properties are situated, is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court". 8. Several averments were made in the plaint and in para 7 of the plaint the prior suit in O.S.No.166 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganipalle had been referred to and the dismissal of the suit on 30-6-2007 on contest also had been referred to and para 15 of the judgment in the said suit had been specifically pointed out. As can be seen from the findings recorded in the prior suit and also the parties arrayed in the prior litigation, the change in the present suit is that in the cause title, the 4th plaintiff, who was the 2nd defendant in O.S.No. 166 of 2003 and it appears the 3rd defendant who is a subsequent purchaser also was added as a party, who is 3rd respondent in this revision. 9. 9. The prior suit O.S.No.166 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle, Kurnool District was filed for declaration, injunction and for other appropriate reliefs. On appreciation of the evidence available on record the learned Judge recorded certain positive findings relating to the not discharging of the burden of proof and ultimately the suit was dismissed. It is stated that the said decree and judgment in a way had attained finality as as on today no appeal had been preferred. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits, but however, on a careful scrutiny of the averments made in the plaint, inasmuch as the parties are the same, except for certain minor changes, which had been already stated supra and the subject matter also being the same, the suit even as per the averments made in the plaint would be barred by Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is needless to say that the averments in the plaint alone may have to be looked into for the present purpose. 10. Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) read as hereunder:- "11. Rejection of plaint:- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: a) where it does not disclose a cause of action. d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 11. This Court is well satisfied that even on a careful reading of the averments made in the plaint, the suit is barred by law, i.e. by operation Order II Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further in the light of the prior judgment, there is no cause of action also to file this suit. 12. The Apex Court in T. Arivandandam Vs. Satyapal1 observed at para 5 as follows: We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the Court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From the statement of the facts found n the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. From the statement of the facts found n the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now pending before the First Munsif's Court Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clear drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such men. (Ch. XI) and must be triggered against them. In this case, the learned Judge to his cost realized what George Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. " It is dangerous to be too good". 13. Inasmuch as this Court is satisfied that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.