@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R. Banumathi, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 17.02.2003 passed by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, granting Interim Injunction in I.A. No. 2867 of 2003 in O.S. No. 724 of 2003. The Union of India -Postal Department represented by its Chief Post Master General is the Revision Petitioner. The multifarious litigations relate to T.S. No. 8019/2 situate at T. Nagar. Chennai, measuring about 5 Grounds 446 Sq.Ft, which stood in the name of Ramasamy Chettiyar. The property was acquired by the Postal Department for the construction of Post Office and for other purposes of Postal Department like the construction of the Administrative Block and other purposes. Aggrieved over the acquisition of the land, Wife and Family Members of the Land Owner have entangled the Postal Department in number of litigations. The numerous litigations appear to have been filed for the collateral purpose of either insisting the Postal Department to re-convey the land or for getting more rent or for the purpose of keeping the litigations alive. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court, re-litigating the matter. The narration of facts and reference to the litigations would bring home the improper use of machinery of the Court. The tendency of the parties seem to be that filing of Writ Petitions by Seethalakshmi Achi. Wife of Ramasamy Chettiyar; filing of Civil Suits by other Members of the Family are as if the acquisition proceedings are not known to them. The tendency appears to be that in cases of number of writ petitions, the Postal Department has been impleaded as party. But, the Civil Suits are filed (without impleading the Postal Department) under the pretext as if they are simple suits for partition involved amongst the family members.
2. For proper understanding of the improper use of the process of the Court, it is necessary to refer to the various litigations. The parties - Petitioners / Plaintiffs in the various litigations are related as under:-
3. Writ Petitions are filed by Seethalakshmi Achi challenging the acquisition proceedings. According to her. the Postal Department''s Policy does not permit the Acquisition of land and also construct building for small post office purposes. As the guidelines provide only for renting out building for such purpose, the acquisition of the land measuring about 5 Grounds 446 Sq.Ft at a place (where only 420 Sq.Ft building is to be constructed) is an act of deprivation at the legitimate right of the Landlord.
4. W.P. No. 18704 of 19%:- After the demise of Ramasamy Chettiyar, nearly after a decade since the property value has been increased manifold in Chennai, the Wife of Late Ramasamy Chettiar Smt. Seethalakshmi Achi had sent a representation dated 15.11.1996 to the Government for re-conveyance of the acquired land. Since the said representation was not considered, this Writ Petition was filed. By order dated 28.01.1997, this Court directed the Union of India, Ministry of Communication to consider the representation dated 15.11.1996 on merits and in accordance with law. By letter dated 11.09.1997. Government of India. Ministry of Communication, Department of Post had sent a reply stating that the representation was considered and the property in question was required for operational needs of the Department which is a public utility Department. Therefore, the said representation was rejected.
5. W.P. No. 20726 of 1998:- After the dismissal of the above said Writ Petition in W.P. No. 18704 of 1996. another representation was sent on 11.02.1998 by the counsel of Seethalakshmi Achi to reconsider the same. Subsequently, the Department of Post had obtained Planning Permission for construction of Administrative Officer Complex comprising Ground floor Plus Two Floors in the said property for which, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai had given permission by letter dated 19.03.1998. The said Smt. Seethalakshmi Achi had filed this Writ Petition for Mandamus, directing the Respondent to dispose of the representation dated 11.02.1998 to re-convey the property. By order dated 30.12.1998, this Court given direction to consider the representation. By letter dated 08.02.1999. the Central Government had considered the said second representation and informed that re-convey ''Vance cannot be agreed to as the site in question is of prime importance for the Department.
6. The Postal Department after facing number of Writ Petitions, with reference to the Budget allotment of Rs. 1.07.32.082/- in the year 1997. the construction work was about to be commenced. When the construction was about to be commenced. Seethalakshmi Achi again preferred a representation for the recoveyance of site, undertaking to repay the compensation that has been paid to her for the reason that the acquired land has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired. The said representation has been rejected.
7. W.P. No. 10868 of 1999:- The Department had given the property to the Contractor for construction of Administrative Office Building. At that time, the said Seethalakshmi Achi filed W.P. No. 10868 of 1999 before this Court. This Court on 10.03.2000 passed the following order:- "According to the Respondent, the work has already commenced for putting up of Post Office. In the above circumstances, the question of considering the representation of the Petitioner to consider the release of the property, since it has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, does not arise for. It will be an empty formality, in the light of the facts not disputed by the Petitioner. Hence, no grounds are made out to release the properly to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed".
8. W.A. No. 668 of 2000:- As against the order of dismissal in W.P. No. 10868 of 1999, the said Seethalakshmi Achi has preferred this Writ Appeal. When the Writ Appeal was taken up for hearing 19.04.2000. the Writ Petitioner stated to withdraw the Writ Appeal and the case was ordered to be posted on 24.04.2000. When the matter was posted on 24.04.2000 for withdrawal, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Seethalakshmi Achi was absent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by order dated 23.08.2001. the Writ Appeal was dismissed for want of Prosecution.
9. The Postal Department was tired and exhaustive of the Writ Petitions. In 1999-2000. the Construction of the Administrative Block commenced. The work was handed over to the Contractor -Chenna Krishnaiah. The Work was awarded on 10.03.1999. The due date for the completion of the construction work was on 19.07.2000. The Contractor could not commence the construction work because of the number of litigations. When the Department was persuading the Contractor to get along with the work and the work was about to be commenced in 2000-2001. the next round of litigations were filed.
10. W.P. No. 18110 of 2001 :- Alleging that the Postal Department''s Policy does not permit Acquisition of land for construction of Post Office and that the guidelines provide only for renting out building for such purpose, Seethalakshmi Achi has filed this Writ Petition to issue Writ of Mandamus to consider her representation and to restrain the Men and Postal Department from in any way altering physical features of the Property in T.S. No. 8049 of 2001. It is stated that in her representation. Seethalakshmi Achi has requested for recoveyance under the amended Provision of Sec.48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act. Alleging that the Department has already constructed one Post Office and that there is no necessity for them to construct another Post Office in the vacant site situated in T. Nagar. Chennai in the same locality, Seethalakshmi Achi has filed this Writ Petition. Later, on 24.06.2002. endorsement was made for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
11. O.S. No. 2653 of 2000:- In the year 2000. when the construction work was about to be commenced, this Suit was filed by Sabarathinam against his Mother - Seethalakshmi (D-l). Sister - Meena Jaganathan (D-2) and the Contractors Chennakrishnnaiah(D-3). Mallikarjun (D-4), Maruthi Brothers (D-5). Sabarathinam had filed the Suit for Partition claiming his 1 /3rd Share in the property in question. According to him. the property was purchased from out of the family business and out of the income of the ancestral properties. According to him, he was living separately for a long time carrying on his business interest and activities which kept him out of Chennai for most of time. The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition alleging that the Suit Properties are to be divided and further alleging that his own Mother and Sister have been avoiding the Partition of the Property under such pretext or other. This Suit was filed for Partition of his 1/3rd Share and to pass a Final Decree for Partition. In a Partition Suit, curiously Permanent Injunction was sought for restraining the Defendants 3 to 5 and their men from putting up any construction in the Suit Property or by engaging in any destruction activity or any other activity in the Suit Property.
12. I.A. No. 7121 of 2000 in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000:- This Application was filed for Temporary Injunction. According to the Plaintiff-Sabarathinam. when he was passing by the Suit Schedule Property, he found the sign board, which contained the name of the Builders - Defendants 3 to 5. who are putting up Construction in the Suit Property. In the Affidavit, it is further alleged that he contacted his Mother to find out the details about the parties, who are trying to put up the construction. Further alleging that his Mother has not disclosed as to how the other Defendants have proposed to put up construction in the Suit Property. The Plaintiff- Sabarathinam has filed this Application for Temporary Injunction, restraining the Defendants 3 to 5 from in any way putting up any construction or engaging in any construction activities and from interfering with the Plaintiffs right over the Suit Schedule Property. The allegations in the Affidavit arc made as if the Plaintiff- Sabarathinam has no knowledge about the Writ Petitions and other litigation proceedings. To suppress the Acquisition Proceedings and other connected litigations, it is alleged that when the Plaintiff- Sabarathinam has contacted his Mother, she was unwilling to disclose as to how Defendants 3 to 5 have proposed to put up construction in the Suit Property. Curiously, the Postal Department has not beer made as a party in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000 and the connection Application in I.A. No. 7121 of 2000. In the said Application. Interim Injunction was obtained on 27.04.2000. The Interim Order of Injunction reads as follows:-
13. C.R.P. No. 2307 of 2000:- Since Interim Injunction Order was granted restraining the Contractors from putting up the Construction, the Postal Department not being a party to the proceedings in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000 and the Application thereon, the Postal Department had to necessarily invoke the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Revision Petition was filed to stay all further proceedings and operation of the Order dated 27.04.2000 made in I.A. No. 7121 of 2000 in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000 on the file of Sixth Assistant Judge. City Civil Court, Chennai. This Court has granted "Interim Stay and Notice". Since the Interim Stay was granted by this Court, the Plaintiff -Sabarathinam has not further pursued the matter and has withdrawn the Suit in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000. as is clear from the final order of this Court in C.R.P. No. 2307 of 2000. When C.R.P. No. 2307 of 2000 came up for final hearing, this Court was informed that the Suit in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000 itself had been withdrawn by the Plaintiff on 23.03.2001. Recording the same, the Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 2307 of 2000 was dismissed by this Court on 03.04.2001.
14. O.S. No. 7891 of 2000:- Since Interim Stay was granted in C.R.P. No. 2307 of 2000 against the Order dated 27.04.2000 made in I.A. No. 712) of 2000 in O.S. No. 2653 of 2000. the parties could not take further advantage of the Interim Order passed in I.A. No. 7121 of 2000. Hence, under the guise of filing the Suit for Partition, the Minor Plaintiffs Annapoorni and Jambulingam. represented by their Mother - Vallisabarathinam have been brought forth to file the Suit for Partition. In this Suit, the Plaintiffs have alleged that their Grandfather - Ramasamy Chettiar had left behind Two Items of Immovable Properties. According to them, the properties were acquired out of the joint family business and out of the income derived therefrom. Among those properties, the Defendants are entitled for 1/3rd Share each. Out of the share of the Second Defendant, Sabarathinam. the Plaintiffs are entitled to 2/9 share (1/9 each share). The Plaintiffs Annapoorni and Jambulingam have filed this Suit for Partition of their 2/9th Share. The Partition Suit was also filed against the Contractors - Chenna Krishnaiah. Mallikarjun and Maruthi Brothers (D-4 to D-6). Curiously in a Partition Suit, the Plaintiffs have sought for Permanent Injunction, restraining Defendants 5 and 6 / Contractors from in any way interfering with the Plaintiffs right over the Plaint Schedule Property.
15. I.A. No. 21378 of 2000 in O.S. No. 7891 of 2000:- Like in earlier litigation, this Application has been filed for Temporary Injunction, restraining the Contractors / D-5 and D-6 from in anyway interfering with the right of the Plaintiffs over the First Schedule Property and entering into the same and from engaging in any construction activity or other activity.
16. The Suit in O.S. No. 7891 of 2000 is said to be pending.
17. Because of the number of litigations and the stay obtained by the parties, the Construction work could not be commenced. Expressing his anguish over the non-commencement of the Work, the Contractor - Chenna Krishnaiah had written Letter to the Department on 04.07.2000. In the subsequent letter dated 17.10.2000 also Contractor had stated that there is delay in the commencement of the work and in the meantime, the cost of the construction materials and the petroleum products has increased from the date of Tendering. Stating that the cost of materials are increased in the market, the Contractor has requested 18% extra rates over his quoted rates, which was negatived by the Department. By the letter dated 17.10.2000. the Contractor has requested for withdrawal of the rebate of 1.5% offered by him while opening of the Tender for the work. By the letter dated 1 7.1 0.2000. the Contractor requested both for enhancement of quoted rate by 18% and also for withdrawal of 1.5% rebate. By its letter dated 31.10.2000. the Department has informed the Contractor that "...quoted rates at the time of tender CANNOT be increased by 18% as per the Agreement clause. And also it is not possible to withdraw the rebate of 1.5% on the quoted rates...". Even thereafter, the construction work did not commence.
18. The Postal Department had initiated action against the Contractor, directing him to proceed with the work. The Postal Department had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2001. calling upon the Contractor to offer his explanation as to why action should not be taken against him on account of breach of contract on his part. The Postal Department has informed him that why action contemplated under Clause 3(a) and/or 3(b) and/or 3(c) thereunder should not be initiated against him. For the Show Cause Notice, the Contractor had sent his explanation. The action initiated against the Contractor is entirely a different matter. Suffice it to point out that the Department had called for fresh tenders. The Tender of M/s. R. Krishnamurthy & Co, Engineering Contractors was accepted in September 2001. The Department has requested the said Contractor to attend the office to complete the formal agreement. It is stated that the tender of M/s.R.Krishnamurthy & Co was accepted and the construction work commenced. With the commencement of the Construction work in 2003. the plight of the Department dragging it by another round of litigation started, on the basis of the same set of facts, but by putting forth in different realm.
19. O.S. No. 724 of 2003:- This Suit was filed by the same Plaintiffs - Annapoorni and Jambulingam represented by their Mother - Valli Sabarathinam. The Suit was filed against Seethalakshmi (D-1). Sabarathinam (D-2). Meena Jaganathan (D-3) and the Contractor - M/s. R. Krishnamurthy & Co (D-4). Suppressing the earlier Suit in O.S. No. 7891 of 2000 and its pendency, the Plaintiffs have filed this Suit again for Partition. It is alleged that the Suit Property is the ancestral property and that in view of the family arrangement entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 to 3. the Suit Properly was allotted to the Plaintiffs. It is further alleged that the Plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the same pursuant to the family arrangement. The Plaintiffs have further alleged that the Defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an undertaking with the Fourth Defendant R. Krishnamurthy & Co for the purpose of developing the Suit Property illegally with a view to defeat the lawful claim of the Plaintiffs, who are entitled to the property by way of family arrangement. On those allegations, this Suit was filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property by carrying on the construction work.
20. I.A. No. 2867 of 2003 in O.S. No. 724 of 2003:- This Application was filed for Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and also from putting up any construction work. Satisfying that the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, learned X1I1 Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. Chennai had granted Interim Injunction as under:-
21. The Postal Department is not the party either in the Suit or in the Interlocutory Application. With the order of Interim Injunction against the Contractor -M/s. R. Krishnamurthy & Co.. the plight of the Department has started again. Since the Department being not a party in the Suit or in the Application, the Postal Department could not move the Trial Court for vacating the order of Interim Injunction. If the Department files an Application to implead itself in U.S. No. 724 of 2003. it would take considerable time for disposal of the same. In the meantime, the interest of the Department would be greatly prejudiced apart from causing loss to the State Exchequer. Hence, the Department has approached this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to sustain the order in I.A. No. 2867 of 2003 in O.S. No. 724 of 2003. At the time of Admitting the Civil Revision Petition. Stay was granted. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. S. Udayakumar has submitted that after the Revision Petition was admitted and Stay was granted, the construction work was completed. Further, it is stated that the Suit in O.S. No. 724 of 2003 is pending. In consideration of the conduct of the parties proliferating the litigation against the Postal Department, elaborate arguments of the Revision Petitioner have been heard.
22. Despite issuance of Notice, the Respondents have not entered appearance. Notice to the Respondents was ordered by substituted service by way of Paper Publication. Despite the Paper Publication, the Respondents have not entered appearance.
23. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel has made elaborate arguments on the number of litigations reportedly tiled by the Family Members. Submitting that the repeated filing of the Suits / Litigations is clear abuse of process of Court, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners / Department has prayed for setting aside the order made in I.A. No. 2867 of 2003 in O.S. No. 724 of 2003. Pointing out the tendency of the parties in filing the Suits without impleading the Postal Department, learned counsel has submitted that the conduct of the parties is clear exercise of abuse of process of the Court. Submitting that the party whose claim is based on falsehood has no right to sustain the Suit.
24. All litigations would show that it is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court. The tendency appears to be Seethalakshmi Achi, Wife of Ramasamy Chettiar filing Writ Petitions challenging the Acquisition Proceedings and praying for recoveyance of the properties. The other family members appear to be filing suits after suits claiming Partition. O.S. No. 7891 of 2000 has been filed by the Plaintiffs for Partition. On a different sets of facts, the same Plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 724 of 2003 alleging that there was family Partition and that the property was allotted to them. O.S. No. 724 of 2003 is nothing but a re-litigation on the same set of facts, giving different colour which amounts to clear abuse of process. Observing that frivolous, vexatious proceedings amount to abuse of process of Court, in the decision reported in
...The Supreme Court Practice. 1995. published by Sweet & Maxwell in Paragraph 18/19/33(Page 344) explains the phrase "abuse of the process of the Court" thus "This term connotes that the process of Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The Court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation.... The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. 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 part)'' to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But. if the same issue is sought to be reagitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, as a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The Court then has the power to slop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of public and the Court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the Court''s discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not: and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which would be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The Court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the Suit succeeding.
26. In the case of Greemilgh ..vs.. Mallard (1947 (2) All E.R. 225). the Court had to consider different proceedings on the same cause of action for conspiracy, but supported by different averments. The Court held that if the Plaintiff has chosen to put his case in one way. he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the Court, put his case in another way and say that he relying on a new cause of action. In such circumstances, he can be met with the plea of res judicata or the statement or plaint may be struck out on the ground that the action is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court.
27. In McLlkenny ..vs.. Chief Constable Of West Midlands Police Force (1980) 2 All E.R. 227, the Court of Appeal in England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was an abuse of the process of the Court since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the Plaintiffs earlier criminal trial. The Court said even when it is not possible to strike out the Plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court because it is an abuse for a party to re-litigate a question or issue which has already been decided against him even though the other party cannot satisfy the strict rule of res judicata or the requirement of issue estoppel.
28. In the earlier portion of the same Judgment, in para 42, their Lordships have said thus:-
Under Order 6. Rule 16. the Court may at any stage of the proceeding order to be struck out, inter-alia any matter in any pleading which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. Mulla in his treatise on the CPC (15th Edition, Volume II, Page 1179, Note 7) has stated that power under clause (c) of Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code is confined to cases where the abuse of the process of the Court is manifest from the pleadings, and that this power is unlike the power u/s 151 whereunder Courts have inherent power to strike out pleadings or to stay or dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of their process. In the present case, the High Court has held the Suit to be an abuse of the process of Court on the basis of what is stated in the Plaint.
(Emphasis added)
29. In cases where the parties do not come with clean hands, the Supreme Court has held that the Plaint is to be ordered to be Struck Off and could be thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We may usefully refer to the following passage in the decision reported in S.P. Chennaivaraya Naidu ..vs.. Jugannath (A.I.R. 1994 SC 53 : 1994 (1) S.C.C. 21 : 1994-1-L.W.21)
...The principle of "finality of litigation'' cannot be pressed in to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands, we are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property - grabbers, tax evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation....
30. In the case reported in
...The Trial should not proceed when there is no controversial issue but the trial Court failed to perform its duty and proceeded to issue summons without carefully reading the Plaint. Since the Plaint suffers from that fatal defect, the mere issuance of summons by the Trial Court did not require that the Trial should proceed even when no triable issue is shown to arise; permitting the continuance of such a suit is tantamount to licensing frivolous and vexatious litigation, which cannot be done. The Supreme Court has also held that it is not necessary to adopt the technical course of directing the trial Court to make the consequential order of rejecting the Plaint.
(Emphasis supplied)
31. Where Interim Injunction obtained by the Plaintiff suppressing the material facts while hearing the Revision Petition against the grant of Interim Order, this Court has not only reversed the Interim Order, but has also striking down the pleadings. In the decision reported in P. Chenchu Ramiah ..vs.. A.M. Nuohu Nachia and another (1999 (1) L.W. 3 J) this Court has observed
...it is the duty of the Court to rectify its mistake and the inherent powers of Court must be exercised in such cases to see that atleast to a certain extent, injustice already done is remedied. The word "abuse" means, misuse or using one''s position for something for which it is not intended, ''''l the case, first respondent misused the machinery of this Court to obtain an unfair advantage by misleading the Court below. The Court below also played its part in committing an illegality. Under these circumstances, 1 feel that this is a fit case where the Petitioner must be put in possession of the property....
32. As against the re-litigation, expressing the disapproval and ordering striking off the Plaint in the decision reported in
...In cases of this nature, it is not as if the Court is powerless or its hands are tied merely because the matter comes to the notice of the Court in the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 C.P.C. The investiture of power under Sec. 115 C.P.C is of superintendence and historical...not fettered to deal with such situations. Where there is clear abuse of process of Court, the Court has to view such conduct seriously and the same is to be halted to save precious time of the public and the Court being wasted. In the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in
33. The repeated filing of number of litigations, facts and other circumstances demonstrably shows clear abuse of process of the Court and the Plaint in O.S. No. 724 of 2003 is to be ordered to be struck off. However, considering the conduct of the Respondents in filing number of litigations, it is necessary to infuse the sense of responsibility in the mind of the Respondents, by directing to pay cost in wasting the time of the Postal Department by entangling them in number of litigations and also the judicial time. In the circumstances of the case, it is just and necessary to direct the Respondents to pay a cost of Rs. 20.000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) - (Rs. 10.000/- payable to the Revision Petitioner / Postal Department and Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai). For the foregoing reasons, the suit in O.S. No. 724 of 2003 on the file of XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is ordered to be struck off and this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Resultantly I.A. No. 2867 of 2003 stands dismissed. The connected C.M.P. No. 2938 of 2003 is closed. The Respondents are directed to pay a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) -(Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Revision Petitioner / Postal Department and Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai). The XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is directed to issue Notice to the Respondents immediately on receipt of a copy of this Order. In the said Notice, the Respondents are to be called upon to pay the Cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) -(Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Revision Petitioner / Postal Department and Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai) within a period of Eight Weeks from the date of Issuance of the said Notice.
