Facts
The Plaintiff (Respondent) filed a suit (O.S. No. 25 of 2023) against the Defendants (Petitioners) seeking a permanent injunction regarding property in Survey No. 60/7, claiming title via a 2002 Sale Deed.
Source reference: p. 2-3The Defendants moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaint, contending the suit was an abuse of process and barred by Order II Rule 2 of the CPC because the Plaintiff had previously filed O.S. No. 35 of 2022 against the second Defendant regarding the same survey number.
Source reference: p. 3-4The Defendants alleged the new suit was filed merely to circumvent a stay order obtained in a revision petition related to the earlier suit.
Source reference: p. 4Issues
1. Whether the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2023 is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC due to the pendency of O.S. No. 35 of 2022.
Source reference: p. 42. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off the plaint as an abuse of process.
Source reference: p. 8Law Applied
The court applied Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, which requires a plaintiff to include the whole of the claim arising from a single cause of action.
Source reference: p. 3, 6It relied on *T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal* (1977) 4 SCC 467, which directs trial courts to "nip in the bud" vexatious litigation that creates an illusion of a cause of action.
Source reference: p. 6Furthermore, the court applied the principles from *K. Valarmathi v. Kumaresan* (2025) SCC Online SC 985, which establishes that Article 227 is a supervisory power to be used sparingly and cannot be used to circumvent the statutory remedy of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
Source reference: p. 7-8Reasoning
The Court compared the plaints of both suits and determined they involved different subject matters and causes of action.
Source reference: p. 5Although both properties are located within Survey No. 60, O.S. No. 25 of 2023 concerns sub-divisions 60/7B and 60/7D based on a 2002 Sale Deed, whereas O.S. No. 35 of 2022 concerns sub-divisions 60/7A2 and 60/7A4 based on a 1994 Sale Deed.
Source reference: p. 5The 2022 suit sought to invalidate a Cancellation Deed following an interference in 2020, while the 2023 suit sought an injunction based on a new interference in May 2023.
Source reference: p. 5-6Consequently, the bar under Order II Rule 2 did not apply.
Source reference: no citationRegarding the invocation of Article 227, the Court reasoned that since the Defendants failed to file a continuous application under Order VII Rule 11 in the Trial Court and failed to produce essential plaint documents, there was no justification to bypass the standard procedural hierarchy.
Source reference: p. 8-9Holding
The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, holding that the suit was not barred by Order II Rule 2 as it arose from a distinct cause of action and involved different properties.
The Court concluded that it was not a fit case to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to strike off the plaint, as there remained triable issues requiring a full trial.
Source reference: p. 9The Defendants remain at liberty to approach the Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 if they so choose.
Source reference: p. 8No orders as to costs were made.
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Ms. Vembuli and Anr. v. Mr. Arumugam [2026:MHC:788 (C.R.P. No. 3743 of 2023)]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in