Judgment : This civil revision petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.135 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The nut shell facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.1227 of 2007 seeking the following reliefs: "a) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, their agent or their relatives from in any manner alienate or encumbrance the suit property in favour of any third parties; b) permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, her men, her agent or her relatives from in any manner interfering the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; c) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff, the cost of the suit; and d) granting such further and other reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." (ii) However, subsequently the same plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.135 of 2008 before the same Court, namely District Munsif Court, Coimbatore seeking the following reliefs: "a) permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, her men, her agent or her relatives from in any manner interfering the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; b) permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant their men, their agent or their relatives from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit property; c) directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff, the cost of the suit; and d) granting such further and other reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice." Suit properties are one and the same. Prayers are also one and the same. Hence, the first defendant in both the suits, who is the revision petitioner herein approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.135 of 2008. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner appropriately and appositely, convincingly and correctly put forth his argument to the effect that under law, no litigant is permitted to file two suits citing one and the same parties and seeking same reliefs in a Court of law. But in this case, curiously this has been done. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner appropriately and appositely, convincingly and correctly put forth his argument to the effect that under law, no litigant is permitted to file two suits citing one and the same parties and seeking same reliefs in a Court of law. But in this case, curiously this has been done. Hence, he prays for setting aside the subsequent plaint and the proceedings there under. Whereas, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit his argument in support of the order passed by the lower Court. 5. A bare perusal of the materials as found in the typed set of papers, makes it clear that both the suits are between the same parties and the reliefs sought and the suit properties are all one and the same. Hence no more elaboration in this regard is required. Accordingly, the paint in O.S.No.135 of 2008 is hereby struck off. The proceedings emerged thereunder also in the form of O.S. is struck down as untenable and illegal in view of the fact that the said second suit O.s.No.135 of 2008 is an artifact of it being an abuse to the process of law. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.