Judgment : 1. Petitioners are defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition, O.S. No. 225/11 filed by respondents 1 to 4 as plaintiffs before the Sub Court, Thalassery. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint in the suit, and Ext.P2 written statement of defendants 1 to 4 / petitioners. There was a previous suit for partition as O.S. No. 123 of 2002 in respect of the properties covered by O.S. No. 225 of 2011, and in such earlier suit predecessor of the petitioners / defendants and also the present plaintiffs, all of them, were among the plaintiffs and that suit had been dismissed after trial, and such decree of dismissal had been confirmed by this Court as well, is the case of the petitioners / defendants 1 and 2, to contend that the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, is their case to seek the intervention of this Court to quash the entire proceedings invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Reliance is placed on Tiny Antony Vs. Jacky and Others, ILR 2012 (1) Ker. 108 to contend that in cases of abuse of process of Court when frivolous suits are filed, this Court has ample power under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution to quash such suit. There cannot be any two opinion as to the empowerment or authority of this Court to quash the suit itself invoking its powers under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution, where the continuation of such suit is shown to be an abuse of the process of the Court. However, exercise of such power, necessarily, has to be done with caution, as the right of a litigant to approach the Court for ventilating his grievance, whatever that be, deserves to be examined on merits as provided by law. Sparingly, in exceptional cases, where it is patently disclosed that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but vexatious, and to allow it to continue will belittle the authority and also cause damage to the institution of the Court as a temple of justice, and in such cases, on satisfaction that the suit or proceeding is frivolous or vexatious, appropriate orders have to be passed to end such litigation. After perusing the written statement filed by the petitioners / defendants 1 and 2, copy of which is produced as Ext.P2, it appears, that only one of the two issues covered by the present suit was covered by the earlier suit. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent suit is barred by res judicata, and if it is so, it is open to the petitioners to canvass that point before the Court below producing the relevant records of the case. 3. On the materials produced and after hearing the counsel, I am not satisfied that this is a case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings of the case emanating from O.S. No. 425/11 on the file of the Sub Court, Thalassery, I make it clear that none of the observations made in this judgment shall cause any prejudice to the petitioners in canvassing whatever defences available to them under law to resist the suit claim. Original petition is disposed of above.