1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.04.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.(PD).No.3488 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 1. C.Valmoorthy, S/o.Chinnasamy. 2. C.Kasthuri, W/o.Chinnasamy. 3. V.Murugan, S/o. Valmoorthy. 4. V.Sankar, S/o. Valmoorthy. 5. V.Dhanusu, S/o. Valmoorthy. ... Petitioners/Defendants Vs. M.Buhari Bai, S/o.Mither, New No.96, Old No.15, Sethamamdas Street, Thirmurugan Nagar, Alapakkam, Chennai-600 116. ... Respondent/Plaintiff Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.04.2013 in I.A.No.46 of 2012 in O.S.No.448 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. http://www.judis.nic.in 2 For Petitioners : Mr.A.Palaniappan For Respondent : Mr.S.Sai Shankar ORDER The civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 02.04.2013 in I.A.No.46 of 2012 in O.S.No.448 of 2011 on the file of the the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. 2.Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 10.04.2019, the Advocate commissioner has filed his report today. According to the Advocate Commissioner, the suit property shown in O.S.No.452 of 1999 and O.S.No.448 of 2011 is one and the same. 3.According to the Commissioner, the Eastern boundary of the suit property in both the suits i.e. in O.S.No.448 of 2011 and O.S.No.452 of 1999 is one and the same and the same has been shown as Mithar's property, father of Buhari Bai. Similarly, the Western boundary in O.S.No.452 of 1999 has been shown as Sekar's property; whereas in O.S.No.448 of 2011, the same Western boundary has been shown as 5 feet lane on Earikkarai. Except this difference shown in the boundary in both the suits, in all other aspects, the property is one and the same. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 4. The Advocate Commissioner has been appointed only to identify the suit property. In his report he has categorically stated that the suit property in O.S.No.452 of 1999 is the same property shown in O.S.No.448 of 2011 with small deviation in boundaries. When the boundaries are changed in the subsequent original suit to get over the earlier judgment, such attempt is nothing but to non-suit the earlier suit and the judgment passed thereon. Such conduct would certainly amount to re-litigation. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.452 of 1999 has already been decreed against the respondent herein. 5. Considering the above aspects, this Court finds that this is nothing but re-litigation and an attempt has been made by the respondent to file a fresh suit showing different boundary to overcome the earlier judgment and decree passed O.S.No.452 of 1999. Such suit should be struck off from the file. 6.In view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 10.04.2019 and based on the Commissioner's report filed today, the suit in O.S.No.448 of 2011 is rejected on the ground of re-litigation with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only). http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., nsd In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.04.2019 Index: Yes / No Speaking/Non-Speaking order nsd Note:Issue Order Copy on 30.04.2019 To The Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee. C.R.P.(NPD).No.2536 of 2009 http://www.judis.nic.in