ORDER : (P.T. ASHA, J.) The above civil revision petition has been filed to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. 2. For the ease of understanding, the parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the trial Court. 3. Before proceeding to discuss the grounds, on which, the defendants 1 to 3 have invoked the superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike of the plaint, it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case, which reads as follows: 3.1 The suit in O.S.No.93 of 2020 is filed before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, representatives from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit schedule property comprises of three survey numbers viz. S.No.125/1A measuring 1.28 acres, S.No.125/1C measuring 25 cents and S.No.230/1B measuring 70 cents. All of these survey numbers have been described within the specified boundaries in Patta No.320. 3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that these lands originally belonged to one Sambandam Chettiar, who has sold the same to Meena wife of Paramasivam under the registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975 vide Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Tambaram. The said Meena, who is none other than the mother of the plaintiff, had been in exclusive possession of the said property. On her demise intestate on 07.12.1985, the plaintiff, as her sole legal heir, had inherited the property and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any let or hindrance and he has also got the revenue records mutated in his favour in Patta No.11941. 3.3 It is the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property is a vacant site and in the month of September 2020, he has arranged to put up fence around the property, at which point in time, the second defendant had trespassed and prevented the plaintiff from putting up the fence. The defendants claim to be the relatives of Sambandam Chettiar. Since the defendants had threatened to encroach into the suit property, the plaintiff had come forward with the aforesaid suit. The defendants claim to be the relatives of Sambandam Chettiar. Since the defendants had threatened to encroach into the suit property, the plaintiff had come forward with the aforesaid suit. 3.4 The written statement was filed by the defendants inter alia denying the sale in favour of the plaintiff's mother Meena. They contended that the said document was a fabricated one. The certified copy of the sale deed, which has been filed in the Court, simply uses the document number of another document with which the sale deed is created. The sale deed is not signed by Sambandam Chettiar. It is the contention of the defendants that Document No.3994/1975 does not pertain to the suit sale deed, but, it is a mortgage deed, which has been executed by Dhanapal and Maniyammal, who are third parties. 3.5 Further, the defendants would contend that Sambandam Chettiar and his mother Paripooranamal had owned the suit property. Paripooranamal had purchased the property under the registered sale deeds in the year 1922 and 1928 and she was carrying on agricultural operations in the said lands using the services of coolies. On her death in the year 1940, her sons Sambandam Chettiar and Murugesa Chettiar inherited the same. Murugesa Chettiar had predeceased Sambandam Chettiar, issueless. Therefore, on the death of Paripooranamal and Murugesa Chettiar, Sambandam Chettiar had become the sole heir and owner of the property. He was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death on 11.08.1996. On his death, his two daughters viz. Koteeswari and C.P.Kasturibai inherited the property. Koteeswari had a daughter, who is the first defendant and C.P.Kasturi had a daughter and two sons Jayakumari, Krishnakumar and Ramkumar. The kist was also being remitted in the name of Sambandam Chettiar till Fasli year 1429. 3.6 On 18.11.2020, the defendants had tendered the kist for the land covered under Patta No.320. However, the Village Administrative Officer, Perungalathur, refused to receive the same stating that the ownership in the patta has changed, he was however not forthcoming with the details. Therefore, the defendants browsed through the official website, where, they came to know that the patta in respect of the lands had been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. However, the Village Administrative Officer, Perungalathur, refused to receive the same stating that the ownership in the patta has changed, he was however not forthcoming with the details. Therefore, the defendants browsed through the official website, where, they came to know that the patta in respect of the lands had been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants would submit that the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained the patta and the legal heirs of Sambandam Chettiar have not been informed or heard before the transfer of the patta in favour of the plaintiff. 3.7 Further, the defendants would contend that the allegation that the plaintiff's mother Meena had exercised ownership over the suit property and had been in possession of the same from the date of her purchase in the year 1975 is absolutely false. The patta and all other revenue records in respect of the suit property stood in the name of Sambandam Chettiar till 2018 and kist has been paid in his name till Fasli 1429. 3.8 The defendants would further contend that by an application dated 18.03.2018, the first defendant had sought to have the patta transferred in her name and in the name of other legal representatives of Sambandam Chettiar through his daughters. No action was taken on the said application. However, by an order dated 18.10.2020, the patta had been fraudulently transferred in the name of the plaintiff without even issuing notice to the legal representatives of Sambandam Chettiar, in whose name patta had stood till its mutation in the name of the plaintiff. 3.9 Further, the defendants would submit that the said Sambandam Chettiar was cultivating the lands and thereafter, due to scarcity of water, cultivation could not take place and the lands were lying fallow. On 30.01.2021, the first defendant had sunk a bore well to the depth of 150 feet in S.No.230/1B and a shed for storage was also erected on the suit property. However, on 02.02.2021, the plaintiff and his henchmen had high handedly destroyed the said shed, but, had left the bore well intact. A complaint was lodged by the defendants on 03.02.2021 and the plaintiff was asked to bring the original title deed. Once again, on 05.02.2021, the plaintiff and his men trespassed into the property and objected the defendants from keeping sign board on the property. A complaint was lodged by the defendants on 03.02.2021 and the plaintiff was asked to bring the original title deed. Once again, on 05.02.2021, the plaintiff and his men trespassed into the property and objected the defendants from keeping sign board on the property. While so, the second defendant was served with a notice in I.A.No.486 of 2020 in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, for the reliefs claimed supra. The defendants had entered appearance in I.A.No.486 of 2020 and sought time for filing counter. 3.10 The first defendant's mother had earlier filed a suit for partition against her sister in O.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. This case was later transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu and renumbered as O.S.No.230 of 2002 and the same was dismissed for default, since the first defendant's mother was unaware of the transfer of the case. 3.11 Since there was no progress on the complaint dated 22.02.2021 (online complaint dated 23.02.2021) lodged by the first defendant, she had filed W.P.No.11751 of 2021. This writ petition was heard and an interim order was passed on 23.06.2021 with a direction issued to the authorities to compare the signatures in the sale deed produced by the plaintiff. Since the patta had been transferred to the name of the plaintiff without notice to the original owner viz. Sambandam Chettiar and his legal representatives, the first defendant had filed W.P.No.10495 of 2021 for a mandamus to cancel the patta issued in the name of the plaintiff and to restore the patta, which was originally granted in the name of Sambandam Chettiar and also to take action against the Village Administrative Officer, who has fabricated the revenue records. This writ petition is still pending. 3.12 The defendants would further submit that the question of them trespassing into the property does not arise, inasmuch as, they are the owners themselves and are in possession of the property. Therefore, there was absolutely no necessity for the defendants to trespass into their own property. They sought for the dismissal of the suit. The written statement had been filed on 21.09.2021. 3.13 Thereafter, the defendants have come forward with the present civil revision petition seeking to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020. Therefore, there was absolutely no necessity for the defendants to trespass into their own property. They sought for the dismissal of the suit. The written statement had been filed on 21.09.2021. 3.13 Thereafter, the defendants have come forward with the present civil revision petition seeking to strike of the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020. The main ground, on which, the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020 is sought to be struck of is that the sale deed dated 20.10.1975, under which, the plaintiff claims title to the property, is a fabricated and fraudulent document. The document number, which is displayed upon the certified copy of the sale deed (certified copy of the copy sheet) does not relate to the suit sale deed, but, refers to a totally unconnected document, which is a mortgage deed executed by one Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal in respect of some other property. The revenue records have been mutated only on the basis of this fraudulent sale deed. Therefore, the defendants seek to have the plaint rejected on the ground of fraud and abuse of the process of the Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/petitioners would further submit that till the year 2020 kist was being paid in the name of Sambandam Chettiar, as the revenue records stood in the name of Sambandam Chettiar. Despite the revenue records standing in the name of Sambandam Chettiar, the Village Administrative Officer has colluded with the plaintiff to transfer patta, which stood in the name of Sambandam Chettiar in Patta No.230, to the name of the plaintiff without notice to the original pattadhar. The learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the observations made in the order dated 28.02.2022 passed in W.P.No.11751 of 2021, wherein, the learned Judge has clearly observed that the document viz. the sale deed dated 20.10.1975 appears to be a fabricated and forged sale deed. He would further submit that despite the plaintiff claiming exclusive title to the property, he had not made any attempt to seek declaration of his title to the same, particularly, when the defendants were claiming title to the same. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in K.Kaleur Rahman & others Vs. He would further submit that despite the plaintiff claiming exclusive title to the property, he had not made any attempt to seek declaration of his title to the same, particularly, when the defendants were claiming title to the same. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in K.Kaleur Rahman & others Vs. P.Kannan & others, 2019-3-L.W. 945 in support of his argument, wherein, this Court had discussed the scope and ambit of a petition filed under Order 6 Rule 16 and Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the submission that this Court in the writ petition W.P.No.11751 of 2021 had declared the sale deed dated 20.10.1975 to be a fabricated and forged document is false and therefore, he would contend that the suit cannot be rejected. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alka Gupta Vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta , (2010) 10 SCC 141 in this regard. He would further submit that the FIR stating that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was null and void has not been registered. That apart, the order passed in W.P.No.11751 of 2021 was taken up on challenge right up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by judgment dated 11.04.2022 in S.L.P.(Crl.).No.3301 of 2022 dismissed the same and had clearly observed that the investigation shall not be influenced by the observations made in the order passed in W.P.No.11751 of 2021 and would act independently of the same. He would further submit that the defendants cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the constitution of India, particularly, when an alternative remedy is available in the form of Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would seek to have the petition dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit in question for a bare injunction on the basis that the property was purchased by his mother Meena from one Sambandam Chettiar under the registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975 and the said sale deed has been registered as Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram. 7. The plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit in question for a bare injunction on the basis that the property was purchased by his mother Meena from one Sambandam Chettiar under the registered sale deed dated 20.10.1975 and the said sale deed has been registered as Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the demise of his mother, he had inherited the property and had got the revenue records mutated in his name. In paragraph no.7 of the plaint, while detailing the cause of action, he has clearly stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on 20.10.1975 when the plaintiff's mother purchased the property from Sambandam Chettiar. 8. The defendants had challenged the said document as a fabricated and forged one. They would submit that upon enquiry and in response to RTI enquiry, it has come to their knowledge that Document No.3994/1975 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram, is a mortgage deed executed by Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal in respect of some other property and not the suit property. In the writ proceedings in W.P.No.11751 of 2021, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has made a statement, wherein, it has been clearly stated that Document No.3994/1975 was a mortgage document executed by one Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal in respect of the property at Vengambakkam Village. Further, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has clearly stated that Document No.3994/1975 is not a sale deed executed by Sambandam Chettiar in favour of Meena in respect of the suit property. The office index and thumb impression register relating to this document number clearly shows that it is executed by Dhanapal in favour of Maniyammal. The Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has enclosed the certified copy of the mortgage deed, which is written in the vernacular (Tamil), whereas, the sale deed projected by the plaintiff is in the English language. Therefore, the very basis, on which, the suit has been filed viz. the sale in favour of the plaintiff's mother stands falsified and the document produced clearly indicates that it is a fabricated document. The plaintiff, who claims that his mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase in the year 1975 has not produced any document to show such possession. the sale in favour of the plaintiff's mother stands falsified and the document produced clearly indicates that it is a fabricated document. The plaintiff, who claims that his mother has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase in the year 1975 has not produced any document to show such possession. On the contrary, the defendants have produced kist receipts and revenue records to show that till the year 2019, the records stood in the name of Sambandam Chettiar. That apart, by an application dated 18.03.2018, the first defendant had sought to have the patta transferred in her name and in the name of other legal heirs of Sambandam Chettiar, for which, there was no response from the revenue authorities. However, despite the fact that admittedly originally the patta stood in the name of Sambandam Chettiar and an application for transferring the patta had been made on 16.03.2020, the revenue authorities have transferred the patta in favour of the plaintiff on 18.10.2020 without notice to the original pattadhar Sambandam Chettiar or his legal representatives. Further, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram, has addressed a letter to the District Registrar (Administration), South Chennai, in which, he has stated as follows: 9. This Court, while passing final orders in W.P.No.11751 of 2021, has also referred to the aforesaid communication. The learned Judge had observed as follows: “19. On perusal of the request of the Sub Registrar, Tambaram in Na.Ka.No.393 of 2021, dated 09.07.2021, which was sent to the District Registrar (Administration), South Chennai, Nandhanam, Chennai, it is seen that the document No.3994 of 1975 is only a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. The encumbrance certificate is not with proper details. The Sub Registrar, Tambaram stated that the forged document No.3994 of 1975 was not available in the revenue records. When the old documents were digitalized by Ninestar agency, the document No.3994 of 1975 seems to be mixed up with other documents. Since the schedule- II records are damaged, the schedule-I records for maintaining the finger print was verified and found that the document No.3994 of 1997 pertains to Vengambakkam Village and not Perungalathur Village. On enquiry with the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram as well as Sub Registrar, Padapai, it was found that a mistake was committed in registering the document No.3994 of 1975 and in the encumbrance certificate of the property of the petitioenr at Perungalathur village. On enquiry with the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram as well as Sub Registrar, Padapai, it was found that a mistake was committed in registering the document No.3994 of 1975 and in the encumbrance certificate of the property of the petitioenr at Perungalathur village. Hence, the Sub Registrar, Tambaram had written letter to the District Registrar (Administration), South Chennai, Nandhanam, Chennai seeking order to carry out correction and delete the mistake committed in the encumbrance certificate. The Sub Registrar, Tambaram produced the photocopy of the schedule-I register, wherein, it is seen that the document No.3994 of 1975 pertains to a mortgage deed between Maniyammal and Ramalinga Naicker. The schedule-I produced also confirms the same. ” 10. Therefore, it is clear that that certified copy of the sale deed, upon which, the plaintiff claims title is not a sale deed as described by him and further, the parties to that document are some third parties and does not relate to the plaintiff. In fact, the learned Judge had observed that the certified copy, upon which, the plaintiff claims title appears to be a forged document. Therefore, prima facie it is clear that the very basis, upon which, the plaintiff has filed this suit is a false. The continuance of such a suit is a waste of judicial time, since the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding is near impossible. Further, the suit itself is based on a fraudulent document and this Court cannot entertain such a claim. The conduct of the plaintiff also requires to be taken note of. Despite the defendants coming forward with the categoric defence that the document, under which, the plaintiff claims title is a fraudulent document and that the property belongs to them exclusively and they are in possession of the same, the plaintiff, who had filed the suit in the year 2020 had not deemed fit to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration. That apart, the plaintiff has not come forward to produce the original sale deed to prove that Document No.3994/1975 relates to the sale deed, under which, his mother had purchased the property and not the mortgage deed, as contended by the defendants and as confirmed by the Sub Registrar. Further, the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default on 05.07.2022 and it is only a year later the same has been set aside and the suit reopened. Further, the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default on 05.07.2022 and it is only a year later the same has been set aside and the suit reopened. It is seen that despite the matter being posted for trial under the special list, the plaintiff has not evinced interest in proceeding with the matter, all of which, would go to show that the defence raised is a valid defence. Since the suit in question is filed on the ground of fraud and the same has been substantially established by the defendants, the continuation of the suit is unnecessary. The delay therefore in filing this revision cannot be held against the defendants. 11. In K.K.Modi vs. K.N.Modi , (1998) 3 SCC 573 the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Courts' discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised and exercised only in special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.” Therefore, in light of the above findings and observations, this civil revision petition stands allowed and the plaint in O.S.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, is struck of. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.