Madras High Court· 20 August 2026
Can a plaintiff file a subsequent suit to get over an earlier decree confirmed in appeal by ingenious drafting?
M Arumugham v. P. Ashok
CRP.347/2023 · 2026:MHC:3410 · CRP.No.347 of 2023
Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Answer
No. After having suffered a decree which was confirmed in appeal, a plaintiff cannot be allowed to file a subsequent suit and draft an ingenious plaint in order to give an impression as if a subsequent cause of action has arisen. Adding the official defendants in the present suit along with the legal heirs, so as to create an illusory cause of action and get over the earlier judgment and decree, is nothing short of a subterfuge and a gross abuse of process of law, and the suit is on the face of it barred by the principles of res judicata.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Res judicata — Suit barred by law — Illusory cause of action — Abuse of process of law —
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Rejection of plaint — Res judicata is a bar provided by law —
Held: A suit barred by the principles of res judicata is a suit barred by law within Order VII Rule 11. Where a plain reading of the plaint along with the documents filed establishes that bar, the plaint can be rejected without trial. (¶21)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Res judicata — No complete bar to decide the issue —
Held further: The judgment relied on by the Court below, rendered where both the suits were pending, does not impose a complete bar to decide the issue of res judicata while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11. (¶19, 20)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 11 — Subsequent suit — Illusory cause of action by ingenious drafting —
Held further: A plaintiff who has suffered a decree confirmed in appeal cannot file a subsequent suit on an illusory cause of action by ingenious drafting; such a suit is a subterfuge and a gross abuse of process of law. Plaint rejected. (¶23, 24)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16In the guise of adding the official defendants in the present suit along with the legal heirs of the deceased – the said Mr.A.Murugesan, the first respondent/plaintiff has attempted to create an illusory cause of action and get over the judgment and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 04:34:28 pm ) decree passed against him in O.S.No.6935 of 1996 dated 06.1.1997.
Paragraph 23After having suffered a decree, which was confirmed in appeal, the first respondent/plaintiff cannot be allowed to file a subsequent suit by pouring the old wine in the new bottle and draft an ingenious plaint in order to give an impression as if a subsequent cause of action has arisen enabling filing of the fresh suit. The present suit in O.S.No.558 of 2022 on the file of the 8 th Assistant https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 04:34:28 pm ) Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is nothing short of a subterfuge. Further, the present suit, on the face of it, is barred by the principles of res judicata when the averments are considered along with documents that have been filed along with the plaint.
Paragraph 24The present suit is also nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and if a suit of this nature is allowed to exist and the parties are asked to undergo trial, there will be no end to the litigations since it cannot be ruled out that even after losing in this attempt, the first respondent/plaintiff herein will file yet another suit by ingenious drafting and seek for the same protection. The Courts should not spare litigants like the first respondent/plaintiff, who think that Courts are like playgrounds where they can come and play as and when they want by filing frivolous suits and taking advantage of the system to illegally prevent persons, who are legally entitled to enjoy the property. It must be borne in mind that the sale deed was executed in favour of the said Mr.A.Murugesan on 02.7.2012 and for the past 14 years, the first respondent/plaintiff has managed to defeat the rights of the true owners from enjoying the property. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 04:34:28 pm )
Acts & Sections
Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Article 227 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of M Arumugham v. P. Ashok — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →