JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rules 11 of CPC to reject the plaint in C.S.No.117 of 2019 as barred by law and devoid of any cause of action.) This application has been filed by the 4th Defendant to reject the plaint in C.S.No.117 of 2019 as barred by law and devoid of any cause of action. 2.(a) It is stated in the application that the plaintiff has filed various writ petitions with regard to the suit property and finally one of the writ petitions was disposed of on 24.09.2000 in W.P.No.17159 of 2000. The above writ petition this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to inspect the land on 03.11.2000 and submit a report as to the correct location and classification of the property in dispute. In the above writ petition, Report has been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating that suit land currently comprised in T.S.No.17 in Block No.33 of Koyambedu Village, which was previously correlated to the Old Survey No.141/2. However, the present T.S.No.17 in Block No.33 of Koyambedu Village had been classified as Natham Poromboke as per the current classification. The above Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.12.2000. Based on the above Writ Petition, another Writ Petition also filed in W.P.No.21665 of 2012 seeking a Mandamus directing the Applicant and 2nd to 4th Respondents to effect suitable corrections in revenue records. In the meanwhile 3rd and 4th Respondents issued notice to the 1st Respondent to remove the encroachment. The same was challenged in another Writ Petition No.10515 of 2015. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 09.01.2017 directing the authorities to demarcate the boundaries of the land of first respondent and proceed in accordance with law. In view of the same W.P.No.21665 of 2012 also came to be disposed. 2(b) Thereafter, 2nd Respondent issued notice dated 24.02.2017 directing the 1st Respondent to remove the encroachment within 7 days. Chanllenging the notice dated 24.02.2017, the 1st Respondent filed another Writ Petition No.5472 of 2017. By order dated 03.03.2017 this Court directed the authorities to demarcate the property in question after afforiding an opportunity to the 1st Respondent. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted on 24.04.2017 followed by a joint inspection on 25.04.2017. An order was pased on 08.05.2017 directing the applicant/plaintiff to remove the encroachment. By order dated 03.03.2017 this Court directed the authorities to demarcate the property in question after afforiding an opportunity to the 1st Respondent. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted on 24.04.2017 followed by a joint inspection on 25.04.2017. An order was pased on 08.05.2017 directing the applicant/plaintiff to remove the encroachment. The same was challenged in W.P.No.13373 of 2017. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 08.01.2019 and the Court has held that the 1st Respondent is not having any right over the S.No.141/1and the encroached property is identified by the revenue authorities. Hence it is the contention that several Writ Petitions already disposed of in respect of the same survey number and the Division Banch has conclusively held that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff has no right over the Survey No.141/1. Now the suit has been filed stating that the Survey No.141/2 classified in T.S.No.17 Block 33 is wrongly re-classified as road without following any procedure and the authorities are interfering with the peaceful possession of the land. 2(c) Hence it is the contention that the suit is liable to be rejected and even in the interim order stage this Court has verified all the documents and found that the western road is common road and portion of the land in Survey No.141/2 did form part of the Road and has now been assigned TS.No.17 in Block 33 of Koyambedu Village. The same is admittedly being used as a road by the owners of lands situate further north of the 1st Respondent's property to reach Poonamallee High road on the north. Hence it is contented that the suit has to be rejected and there is no cause of action. 3. Denying the entire allegations the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff filed his counter stating that the original report by the Revenue Divisional Officer before the Court on 17.11.2000 indicate that suit land is currently comprised in T.S.No.17 Block No.33 Koyambedu Village which previously co-related to Old Survey No.141/2 and further reported that prior to the town survey the said land was registered in the 1st respondent's name as per Patta No.1279. In fact, the Revenue authorities have consistently maintained the same stand in all other proceedings before the writ court. The Revenue Divisional Officer's statement has not been challenged. It has to be tested only after conducting elaborate trial. In fact, the Revenue authorities have consistently maintained the same stand in all other proceedings before the writ court. The Revenue Divisional Officer's statement has not been challenged. It has to be tested only after conducting elaborate trial. It is further stated that the Road referred in the sale deed was created only in the year 1982 for the first time to provide the purchaser easementary right of ingress and egress from Poonamallee High Road to reach his property. The ownership over the said common road has always been retained by the respondent has never vested in the hands of the Government officials nor was there any acquisition proceedings to acquire the said lands in manner known to law. It is further contended that the respondent seeking for declaration of title over an extent of 23 1/2 cents of the land comprised in S.No.141/2 and not for entire survey number. The classification itself disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore all the facts has to be decided only in the trial. Only for the first time the Writ Court questioned the title over the suit property and held in the negative, though there was no declaration sought for in the said writ petition that too in a summary manner without letting in any oral evidence. Since two orders of the court remain in operation, both contrary to each other, the present suit has been filed for declaration of title before a court. Further it is his contention that to find out the allegation the plaint has to be seen and submitted that the issues, disputed facts has to be decided only in the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal fo the application. 4. The 5th Respondent filed counter in support of the applicant stating that the plaintiff had originally purchased 38 cents of land. thereafter, in sale deed dated 31.08.1982 registered as document No.1582/1982. The schedule of the property has been described as west by "Common Road" in S.No.141/1 2 part. That itself clearly indicate that the Plaintiff himself had accepted the existence of a common road. It is the contention that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The entire extent according to the patta was to an extent of 33 cents. Therefore, the pliaintiff claiming right over approximately additional 15 cents does not arise. That itself clearly indicate that the Plaintiff himself had accepted the existence of a common road. It is the contention that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property. The entire extent according to the patta was to an extent of 33 cents. Therefore, the pliaintiff claiming right over approximately additional 15 cents does not arise. The Plaintiff and one Pannerselvam have illegally occupied and encroached upon S.No.141/1 and 2 part after handing over the lands situated in Survey No.141/1 & 2 part to the corporation which had laid overhead power lines, street lights etc., now cannot claim right over the same again after lalpe of 35 years. Hence it is his contention that the writ orders have been passed which are binding, now the suit is not maintainable. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. Admittedly, several writ petitions filed from the year 2000 till 2019 clearly indicate that the plaintiff has lost the legal battle, have taken different route in the form of suit by suppressing the earlier orders and filed this suit, the same is nothing but abuse of process of law. The learned counsel Mr. Mohan in support of the Applicant has contended that the subject property is classified as road long back. Various writ petitions also held the same. Writ Petitions have not been disposed of mere affidavit etc., Proper enquiries have been conducted. Demarcation and survey done. After taking every care, writ orders came to be passed, holding that the plaintiff have not right over the suit property. In subject property is only natham puramboke. In such a view of the fact the same issue now cannot be reagiatated in the form of the suit. If the same is allowed, the same will nothing but the circumvent orders of this Court passed from the year 2000. Hence, it is the contention that the suit is not maintainable and has to be dismissed. It is only abuse of process of law on the ground of re-litigations. In support of his submissions he relied upon the following judgments: i. Shri Girish Vyas & Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others, [CDJ 2011 SC 1084] ii. T.Arivanandam Vs T.V.Satyapal, [ AIR 1977 SC 2421 ] iii. K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi [1998-3-SCC-573 ] 6. It is only abuse of process of law on the ground of re-litigations. In support of his submissions he relied upon the following judgments: i. Shri Girish Vyas & Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others, [CDJ 2011 SC 1084] ii. T.Arivanandam Vs T.V.Satyapal, [ AIR 1977 SC 2421 ] iii. K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi [1998-3-SCC-573 ] 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Plaintiff contended that the suit cannot be rejected merely on the submission of the applicant and the allegations in the plaint has to be seen whethere there is any cause of action or not. In deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, the court shall confine only to the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed there to cannot go the defence documents. It is his contention that in W.P.No.17519 of 2000 in the contempt application the Revenue Divsional Officer has filed a report stating that Survey No.141/2 of the Koyambedu Village was registered in the name of Thiru Radha Krishnan as per the Patta No.1289. learned counsel further contended that the above report of the R.D.O. has not been rectified and still holds good. The writ order passed in W.P.No.17159 of 2000, wherein it is clearly held that as far as the Survey No.141/2, the Respondent cannot interfere and held that Old Survey No.141/2 may not form part and parcel of T.S.No.17/33 of Koyambedu Village. It is a patta land. The same Writ Petition was disposed on 5.12.2000 when the court had held that the plaintiff herein is title holder in Survey No.141/2. With respect to other survey No.141/3B, it is directed the plaintiff to establish the title. Hence it is his contention that the suit has been now filed in respect of Survey No.141/2 Patta No.1279 measuring an extent of 23 cents and not in respect of Survey No.141 as held by this Court. Hence it is his contention that the suit is very well maintainable and only Civil Court can go into the validity of the documents and proceedings. Therefore, prayed for dismissal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: i. Mahamaya Paul vs. Dipak Kumar Mukherjee and Others [MANU/WB/0881/2012] ii. Sri Krishna Salt works vs. State of A.P. [MANU/AP/0690/2003] iii. N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and others [MANU/SC0279/2010] iv. Therefore, prayed for dismissal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: i. Mahamaya Paul vs. Dipak Kumar Mukherjee and Others [MANU/WB/0881/2012] ii. Sri Krishna Salt works vs. State of A.P. [MANU/AP/0690/2003] iii. N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and others [MANU/SC0279/2010] iv. The Mysore State Electricity Board vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mill Ltd., and Others. [MANU/SC/0007/1962] v. Jashwant Sing and Ors. vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi [MANU/SC/0279/1985] vi. Haryanan State Electricity Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Ors. [MANU/SC/0626/2010] vii. sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E.Edr.(D) by Lrs. vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors. [MANU/SC/0122/2000] 7. Though the suit has been filed for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner in respect of the suit land of 23 cents comprised in Survey No.141/2, it is the main contention of the plaintiff that originally the total extent of the land in Old Survey No.141/4 is 2 Acres 25 Cents, out of the said land he purchased 35 1/2 cents and further the plaintiff had sold 12 cents and the remaining 23 1/2 cents retained by him as absolute owner and the same has been assessed for urban land tax and above property is abutting the Poonamallee Road on the southern side and being a vacant land, the same has been compounded with a gate on the Northern Side to protect from any third party encroachment over the same. Hence it is the contention that still he is retaining the property. The Writ Court in the order passed in W.P.No.17159 of 2000 has held that reclassifying the above survey number T.S.No.17/33 without due process of law is not correct. Therefore, his contention that still he is holding the property and seek a declaration. This Court is also conscious of the fact that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has to be disposed in terms of the provision of law. To find out whether any cause of action to maintain the suit or not, the Court shall confine itself to the averments made in the pleadings and the documents annexed to them. The documents and pleadings of the defendants are not germane for consideration at this stage. To find out whether any cause of action to maintain the suit or not, the Court shall confine itself to the averments made in the pleadings and the documents annexed to them. The documents and pleadings of the defendants are not germane for consideration at this stage. At the same time, when the court finds that the very suit itself is an abuse of process of law or relititgation, the Court can still reject such plaint by exercising its inherent power. 8. It is to be noted that though the suit has been filed for seeking declaration in respect of Old Survey No.141/4 and 141/2 bearing Patta No.1279. The identity of the property which was subject matter of the writ courts in all these years from 2000 is not in dispute. What was pleaded in the plaint now is Old Survey No.141/4 and 141/2. It is undisputed fact that the dispute is chequered history. From the year 2000 the dispute arose and the first writ petition was filed in W.P.No.17159 of 2000. The above writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the Assistant Engineer of Corporation of Chennai, The Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai and the Collector of Chennai. the above writ petition was in respect of 2 Survey Nos.141/4B and 141/2. This Court in the above writ petition directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to file a report, wherein he has stated that as per the records available in Egmore T.S.No.17 Block No.33 was classified as Government Puramboke land and the original Survey number of the above is 141/2 of Koyambedu Village. Based on the above report the writ court has passed order on 17.11.2000 that Survey No.141/2 now forms part and parcel of T.S.No.17/33 of Koyambedu Village was reclassified as Puramboke land without following due process of law. It is also to be noted that the above land was shown as pathway at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the above writ petition was disposed of holding that Respondents 1 to 3 cannot interfere with the plaintiff right in respect of S.No.141/2. In respect of S.No.141/4B it is held that the writ petitioner has to establish his title before the Civil Court. 9. Again Plaintiff has filed W.P.No.21665 of 2012 seeking direction to the respondents to effect suitable correction in the Survey Nos.141/2 and 141/4B now T.S.No.17/33. In respect of S.No.141/4B it is held that the writ petitioner has to establish his title before the Civil Court. 9. Again Plaintiff has filed W.P.No.21665 of 2012 seeking direction to the respondents to effect suitable correction in the Survey Nos.141/2 and 141/4B now T.S.No.17/33. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has claimed to have purchased an extent of 35 1/2 cents. As per his own pleadings he has sold 12 cents on 27.8.1999 itself. However, he has claimed title for 26 cents in the above writ petitions. Similarly, another W.P.No.5472 of 2017 was also filed. This Court directed authorities once again to demarcate the properties in question after affording opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case along with all the relevant documents and directed the respondent to demarcate the property in question and passed appropriate order in accordance with law. 10. As per the above orders, after considering the objections, the property has been demarcated and the order has been passed on 08.05.2017 by the Greater Chennai Corporation. Again in an another Writ Petition No.2168 of 2016, the same issue has been raised, the Court directed to make inspection and survey with regard to the alleged encroachment, after issuing notice to the persons concerned. It is also held that there is encroachment, necessary steps for removal of the same, four weeks time was granted from the date of receipt of order. With the above direction writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Based on the orders of this Court, joint inspection also conducted on 27.04.2017 and found that the plaintiff was encroacher of the disputed land. The above orders were onceagain put in challenge by the Plaintiff in W.P.No.13373 of 2017. The Division Bench of this Court considering various orders passed from the year 2000 and extracted the nature of the writ petition filed by the plaintiff in para 16 of its order and ultimately held that the property now demarcated by the authorities are encroached properties and the plaintiff is not the owner of the property in S.No.141/1 and classified as T.S.No.17/33. The Division Bench has considered the various orders passed by this Court from the year 2000 and held that the encroached property identified by the authorities, held by the Plaintiff is Government property. 12. The Division Bench has considered the various orders passed by this Court from the year 2000 and held that the encroached property identified by the authorities, held by the Plaintiff is Government property. 12. Though one of the earlier orders in the year 2000 the writ court has held that re-classification has been done without following any procedure, the fact remain that on the date of disposal of the writ petition the suit property was only pathway and the same was classified as Government Puramboke. Thereafter, in the several writ petitions, orders were passed after proper enquiry. From the demarcation by various authorities in pursuant to the orders of this Court, it is found that the property is encroached property. From the Division Bench of this Court order, it is seen that plaintiff has no title to the property. Therefore, changing the Survey Number in tune with the orders of the earlier orders of this Court in the year 2000, the same issue cannot be allowed to be reagitated when the detailed orders passed in various writ petitions. Therefore, mere clever drafting by introducing the survey number which is not covered under the Division Bench Order in W.P.No.13373 of 2017, the plaintiff cannot now contend that this is not in respect of the Survey Number covered in the writ orders and it is only relate to S.No.144. 13. It is to be noted that such exercise is nothing but futile exercise of the plaintiff. Even dehors the survey number, the issue and dispute is only with regard to the pathway and the identity of the property is one and the same. When the writ court after consideration of the joint inspection and demarcation report found that the property is encroached property, the same issue cannot be reagitated once again merely on the basis of the findings recorded in the year 2000 on the basis of some report said to have been filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer that too under the Contempt Applications. 14. In T.Arivanandam Vs T.V.Satyapal, [ AIR 1977 SC 2421 ] the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: “Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High court on an interlocutory application for injunction. 14. In T.Arivanandam Vs T.V.Satyapal, [ AIR 1977 SC 2421 ] the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows: “Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes decrees with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such, litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive” 15. In the judgment of K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi reported in [1998-3-SCC-573 ] the Honourable Apex Court has held that One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the Court is re litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the Court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 16. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff has cited the following judgments during his arguments 1. Mahamaya Paul vs. Dipak Kumar Mukherjee and Others [MANU/WB/0881/2012] "13. It is a settled proposition of law that the Court, at the time of considering an application under Order 7, rule 11 of the Code, shall confine itself to the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto. It shall not look into the defence of the defendants in order to find out as to whether the suit is barred by law. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on the plea of being barred by principle of res judicata upon invocation of the provision contained under Order 7, rule 11(d) of the Code." 2. It shall not look into the defence of the defendants in order to find out as to whether the suit is barred by law. Therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected on the plea of being barred by principle of res judicata upon invocation of the provision contained under Order 7, rule 11(d) of the Code." 2. Sri Krishna Salt works vs. State of A.P. [MANU/AP/0690/2003] "Now the Supreme Court as well as this Court has ruled that the aggrieved party can maintain a suit questioning the correctness of the order passed by the statutory authority, in a Civil Court and even if he approaches High Court and suffers an adverse order, prior to approaching Civil Court it would not operate as res judicata. " 3. N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and others [MANU/SC0279/2010] "15. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (for Short CPC) titled 'Res Judicata' states that no court shall try any issue which was directly or substantially in issue between the same parties and which has been heard and finally decided by a competent court. Thus unless an issue directly and substantially raised in the former case is head and decided by the competent court, the principle of res judicata will not be attracted." 4. The Mysore State Electricity Board vs. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mill Ltd., and Others. [MANU/SC/0007/1962] " It is well settled that in order to decide whether a decision in an earlier litigation operates as res judicata, the Court must look at the nature of the litigation what were the issues raised therein and what was actually decided in it." 5. Jashwant Sing and Ors. vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi [MANU/SC/0279/1985] "In order that a defence of res judicata may succeed it is necessary to show that not only the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff had an opportunity of getting the relief which he is now seeking in the former proceedings. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit or proceedings." 6. Haryanan State Electricity Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Ors. The test is whether the claim in the subsequent suit or proceedings is in fact founded upon the same cause of action which was the foundation of the former suit or proceedings." 6. Haryanan State Electricity Board vs. Hanuman Rice Mills and Ors. [MANU/SC/0626/2010] "The mattrer that was directly and substantially in issue in the second suit was completely different from the matter that was directly and substantially in issue in the first suit. The reliefs claimed were also different, as the first suit was for a permanent injunction and the second suit was for a declaration and consequential relief. Therefore, the second suit was not barred by res judicata." 7. Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E.Edr.(D) by Lrs. vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors. [MANU/SC/0122/2000] "The Madras High Court, in Uthiva Somasundareswarar Vs. Rajanga ( AIR 1965 Mad 355 ) held ( see para 8 therein) that the previous suit was only for injunction relating to the crops. May be, the question of title was decided, though not raised in the plaint. In the latter suit on title, the finding in the earlier suit on title would not be res judicata as the earlier suit was concerned only with a possessory right. The above judgements clarify the settled proposition of law. But the facts of the present case are different and not applicable to those judgements. 17. It is to be noted, even in the suit interlocutory applications stage, this Court in A.No.1993 of 2019 and O.A.No.124 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019 has analysed the entire documents and discussed in paras 20 and 21 and recorded that even the sale deed to the plaintiff shown as the common road and the property has been classified as T.S.No.17/33 of Koyambedu Village. The Court in the above order further recorded that the order passed in W.P.No.17159 of 2000 cannot be read in isolation so as to confer title on the entire extent of survey number 141/2 on the applicant/plaintiff. The original extent of the Survey number was 2 acres 32 cents. therefore the plaintiff having purchased only 35 1/2 cents, therefore the claim of the plaintiff /applicant that the entire survey number has been assigned T.S.No.17 and Block No.33 cannot be correct. The original extent of the Survey number was 2 acres 32 cents. therefore the plaintiff having purchased only 35 1/2 cents, therefore the claim of the plaintiff /applicant that the entire survey number has been assigned T.S.No.17 and Block No.33 cannot be correct. In the above order it is also held that the sale deed of the plaintiff itself indicates that the suit property is used as a road access to the northern side of the Poonamallee High Road. When the courts have thoroughly analysed the documents and held various enquiries and the writ court is also granted several opportunities for demarcation and inspection and joint inspection etc., and found that the property is an encroached one and not belong to the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent the orders of the writ court under the pretext of establishing title before the civil court. Filing of the present suit is nothing but abuse of process of law and amounts to new litigation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that though the rejection do not strictly fall under any of the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., this court is not powerless to reject such suit which has been filed to circumvent the earlier orders of this Court and the suit itself is nothing but relitigation of the suit which has already reached finality. Such suit has to be thrown out at the initial stage itself. The person who circumvent the orders and filing the suit by clever pleadings in order to non-suit the earlier orders cannot be encouraged by the court of law. The judgment reported in K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi [1998-3-SCC-573 ] (supra) and T.Arivanandam Vs T.V.Satyapal, [ AIR 1977 SC 2421 ] (supra) squarely apply to the fact of the case. 18. Accordingly, the suit is rejected and the Application is allowed.