M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The second opposite party, who is the petitioner in CMP.6/2011 in C.C.81/2010 on the file of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, is the Revision Petitioner.
(2.) The first respondent in this Revision Petition, as complainant filed a case against the Revision Petitioner and three others, impleading them as opposite parties, claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation, based upon medical negligence as well as deficiency, on various grounds and the case is contested by the opposite parties.
(3.) In the said C.C. that is 81/2010, the second opposite party, filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC, to reject the complaint on the ground that the same kind of complaint was previously filed, taken on file as C.C.42/2009, which was not pressed and dismissed without obtaining, any liberty to file a fresh complaint and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable, which was opposed by the complainant/first respondent contending that there is no bar from filing a second complaint, since the previous complaint was not decided on merit.;