Judgment Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.82 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur. 2.The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one late Amaravathiammal. Their ancestors were enjoying and possessing vast land at Madhavaram Village. One Seenupillai was jointly possessing patta land in Survey No.1471/3 about 3.80 acres along with co-patta holders Murugappa Naicker and Govinda Naicker. Thereafter, the said patta holders had made partition among themselves leaving 1.07 acres to the said Seenupillai. Subsequently, Seenupillai, who is the plaintiffs ancestral, effected partition among their family members. As such, the plaintiffs family members were holding and possessing 0.56 cents in Survey No.1471/13 and the plaintiffs mother inherited her rights of 0.56 cents land in the said survey number. The third petitioner/third defendant effected transfer of deeds from his share to his family members, viz., Deivasigamani, P.Thirupurasundari and the said third petitioner/third defendant viz., C.Subramani, obtained joint patta from the Tahsildar in their favour including the plaintiffs family land about 0.56 cents. Hence, the respondent/plaintiffs mother made appeal to R.D.O. Ponneri to cancel the joint patta issued in favour of the above said persons. In the mean time, the third petitioner/third defendant along with his joint owners filed a suit for bare permanent injunction against the plaintiffs late mother Amaravathi and her late husband Kaniappa Pillai in O.S.No.325 of 1983 before the District Munsif, Ponneri and the same was decreed in their favour. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred first appeal in A.S.No.56 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Thiruvallur, which was also decreed in favour of them. Aggrieved by that order, a second appeal in S.A.No.262 of 1993 has been filed, in which, this Court set aside the finding of the lower Court by directing the parties to work out their remedy in the new suit to be filed. In the mean time, the third petitioner herein/third defendant made a settlement in favour of his wife, the fourth petitioner herein. During the pendency of the said second appeal, the fourth petitioner herein transferred the property by sale deed in favour of the second petitioner herein. The said second petitioner entered into joint development agreement with the first petitioner. Therefore, the first petitioner herein put up the board at suit property for joint development. During the pendency of the said second appeal, the fourth petitioner herein transferred the property by sale deed in favour of the second petitioner herein. The said second petitioner entered into joint development agreement with the first petitioner. Therefore, the first petitioner herein put up the board at suit property for joint development. The respondents-plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 03.03.2009 to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.82 of 2009 praying for mandatory injunction against the first petitioner herein or their officials by directing them from removing their name-board displayed at suit property more fully described in schedule and for permanent injunction against the above mentioned petitioners 1 and 2 or their agents or their assignors restraining them from making any development or entering into any sort of agreement with any third parties relating to the suit property more fully described in the schedule and for costs. Subsequently, the respondents/plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.235 of 2009 in O.S.No.82 of 2009 praying for interim injunction. The petitioners/defendants also filed counter stating that the petition is devoid of merits and the same has to be dismissed. The petitioners/defendants have now filed the present civil revision petition contending that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is abuse of process of law and also vexatious litigation and therefore, the plaint in O.S.No.82 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur should be struck off. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the sign board and prohibitory injunction of developing the schedule mentioned property against the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, who are the developers of the suit property is per se an abuse of process of law and is liable to be rejected. The plaint is a vexatious litigation and is aimed only to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the suit for bare injunction is totally not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in S.A.No.262 of 1993 dated 112. 2006. Therefore, the suit for bare injunction is liable to be dismissed. The plaint is a vexatious litigation and is aimed only to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the suit for bare injunction is totally not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in S.A.No.262 of 1993 dated 112. 2006. Therefore, the suit for bare injunction is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the plaint does not disclose that (a) the respondents herein/plaintiffs have a title over the suit property; (b) that they are in possession of the suit property and © that they intended to at least sue for title or recovery of possession in future. Therefore, he submitted that the entertainment of suit is miscarriage of justice and tried to create a cloud over the property. Therefore, it is clear case of abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to struck off the plaint in O.S.No.82 of 2009. In support of his preposition, he also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 350, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8 V. S.R.EJAZ, REP. BY HIS POWER AGENT MURALIDHAR T.BALANI reported in 2009 (5) Law Weekly 79 and in the case of V.DEVARAJ AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, MADRAS-9 AND OTHERS reported in 2003(4) CTC 134 . 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the present civil revision petition is not maintainable and the petitioners/defendants have not even filed written statement and also not satisfied with the any of the condition stated in Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C and the present suit arose on a new cause of action. Therefore, the present revision is not maintainable and the petitioners/ defendants can avail the remedy available under the statute before the lower Court and the civil revision petition has to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Order VII of CPC deals with plaint. Therefore, the present revision is not maintainable and the petitioners/ defendants can avail the remedy available under the statute before the lower Court and the civil revision petition has to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Order VII of CPC deals with plaint. Rule 11 of CPC deals with rejection of plaint, which reads as follows: 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 returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the .requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; .(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 the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper 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-paper, 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.] From the above, it is clear that for the purpose of rejecting the plaint, the above conditions have to be satisfied. 7. In the present case, the main contention of the suit is abuse of process of law especially in view of the judgment passed by this Court dated 112. 2006 in S.A.No.262 of 1993. The said second appeal arises out of the judgment passed in O.S.No.325 of 1983, which was filed by the third petitioner herein/third defendant before the District Munsif, Ponneri and also the same was decreed in his favour. 2006 in S.A.No.262 of 1993. The said second appeal arises out of the judgment passed in O.S.No.325 of 1983, which was filed by the third petitioner herein/third defendant before the District Munsif, Ponneri and also the same was decreed in his favour. Against the said judgment and decree, the respondents herein/plaintiffs filed A.S.No.56 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Thiruvallur, which was also decreed in favour of the third petitioner/third defendant. Aggrieved by the judgment made in A.S.No.56 of 1990, the respondents/plaintiffs filed S.A.No.262 of 1993, in which also, the appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and held as follows: "The learned counsel appearing for both sides submitted that though the suit was filed for bare injunction, the parties herein made their claims based on title. Hence it is proper to the respondents herein to file necessary suit for declaration. In the mean time, the parties herein agreed to maintain status quo till the end of March, 2007 enabling the respondent herein to file the suit before that period. If the suit is filed in time as mentioned above, it is open to the parties to seek interim order before the Court, where the suit is filed. In view of the above, the findings of the courts below are set aside directing the parties to work out their remedy in the new suit to be filed. The second appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs." From the above, it is clear that the Court set aside the findings of the lower Court with a direction to the parties to work out their remedy in the new suit to be filed and also time was given to the respondent viz., third petitioner herein to file a suit for declaration. The present suit O.S.No.82 of 2009 has been filed for mandatory injunction against the first petitioner or their officials from removing the name board displayed at the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the petitioners 1 and 2 herein from making any development or entering into any sort of agreement with any third parties relating to the suit property. It is pertinent to note that there is no observation against the present respondents/plaintiffs in the suit. Taking into consideration the facts and also the documents, the petitioners/defendants has to go before the trial Court to establish their case relying on the material evidence. It is pertinent to note that there is no observation against the present respondents/plaintiffs in the suit. Taking into consideration the facts and also the documents, the petitioners/defendants has to go before the trial Court to establish their case relying on the material evidence. There are no materials available to show that the suit is abuse of process of law and also it is not a vexatious litigation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 350, PANTHEON ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-8 V. S.R.EJAZ, REP. BY HIS POWER AGENT MURALIDHAR T.BALANI reported in 2009 (5) Law Weekly 79, wherein it has been held as follows: "41. There is no dispute with respect to the legal position that before approaching the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the parties should avail the alternative remedy. However, in a given case, if the attempt of a party to the litigation was to take undue advantage and the suit was a clear abuse of process of law and that too in a case in which the very suit itself was filed only to circumvent the order passed by the Supreme Court, this Court was not expected to be a mute spectator without taking steps to correct the jurisdictional error. 50. The Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 =2003-3-L.W.693, considered the nature of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and held thus: "22.... It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The Power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar. 25..... The Power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar. 25..... In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be, by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved; the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suo motu as well. 53. In Palanisami Gounder vs. Sankara Ramanathan & 4 others, [ 1999 (3) LW 897 ], learned Judge of this Court found that the subsequent suit was at the instance of a judgment debtor in an earlier suit, which was confirmed by the High Court and the attempt in filing subsequent suit was to set at naught the order of eviction, and accordingly, the very suit was dismissed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 58. The facts projected in the case clearly show that the attempt of the respondent was only to flout the direction issued by the Supreme Court and to retain his possession under some pretext or the other. Court cannot be a tool in the hands of such vexatious litigants. It will be a mockery of justice to permit the respondent to enjoy the luxury of relitigation. 59. It is the solemn duty of this Court to see that nothing would come in the way of frustrating the recipient of justice from executing the decree. Court cannot be a tool in the hands of such vexatious litigants. It will be a mockery of justice to permit the respondent to enjoy the luxury of relitigation. 59. It is the solemn duty of this Court to see that nothing would come in the way of frustrating the recipient of justice from executing the decree. Similarly, the Court is expected to filter out and throw all unwanted and vexatious litigations which would be an obstruction to the decree holders in their journey to get justice." There is no dispute regarding the preposition enumerated in these paragraphs. Even in the said judgment it is stated that normally the parties should be directed to pursue the statutory remedy available to them before availing the constitutional remedy. Only in extra-ordinary circumstances, when it was demonstrated that there was flagrant violation of the principles of law or abuse of process of Court or the lower Court was accused of dereliction of duty of grave nature, the parties would be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, there are no materials to show that there is any flagrant violation of principles of law or abuse of process of law and no extraordinary circumstances warranting interference. It is also to be noted that there is no direction or observation against the respondents/plaintiffs by the earlier judgment dated 112. 2006 in S.A.No.3260 of 1993. So, the judgments cited supra only high lights the general preposition of law as to how Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. Hence, the judgments relied on by the petitioners are not helpful to them. In the case of K.K.SWAMINATHAN V. SRINIVASAGAM reported in 2003(4) CTC 347 also deals only with scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also not helpful to the petitioner. 9. In these circumstances, the petitioners/defendants can agitate and work out their remedy before the trial Court in accordance with law. Hence, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed as there are no material to establish that there is abuse of process of law. No costs. It is needless to say that any observation made in the above appeal should not be used or relied on by the counsel before the trial Court. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.