M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.

These two intracourt appeals have arisen from the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in Application Nos.5183 of 2006 and 30 of 2007 filed by the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendants 5 and 6 respectively for rejection of plaint in C.S.No.1509 of 1994 under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

2. TheCourt heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3. These appeals have emerged under the following facts and circumstances.

.(a) In the year 1981, the first respondent and his brother Kadiresa Adityan filed an Application in A.No.165 of 1981 under Sec.92 of the C.P.C. seeking leave. The said application was contested by the respondents therein stating that the applicants were not persons interested in the Trust within the meaning of Sec.29 of the CPC. In order to satisfy their contentions, the respondents filed Application No.879 of 1981 seeking permission to cross-examine the applicants on their affidavit. On the dismissal of the said application, the respondents filed OSA No.152 of 1981. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and permitted the cross-examination. The applicants filed Civil Appeal No.6040 of 1981 before the Supreme Court. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court has held that the cross-examination would be confined only to the question of sanction and the principles governing the same. Thereafter, the respondents called upon the applicants to place the original documents for inspection. Since copies alone were given, the respondents filed Application No.3124 of 1982 seeking a direction for production of the originals and for permission to make inspection of the same. On dismissal of the said application OSA No.160 of 1982 was made. The same was allowed by the Division Bench. At the time of the cross-examination of the first applicant, the documents were inspected and the respondents complained that they were spurious.

.(b) While the matter stood thus, the respondents filed Application No.4738 of 1982 to dismiss the leave application in A.No.165/81 for non-compliance with the order of the Court. The learned Single Judge allowed A.No.4738/82 and consequentially dismissed A.No.165/81. Challenging the orders made in those applications, the applicants in A.No.165/81 filed OSA Nos.105 and 106 of 1983, and they were dismissed by the Division Bench. Pursuant to the same, the applicants preferred SLP Nos.3362 and 3363 of 1987 which were also dismissed by the Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, the instant suit C.S.No.1509/94 was filed seeking a declaration that the order of dismissal passed in Application No.165 of 1981 filed by the plaintiffs herein under the provisions of Section 92 of the C.P.C. for grant of leave of this Honble Court and the unnumbered suit filed along with the said application and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Honble Court and by the Supreme Court of India by order dated 11. 1993, made in S.L.P.No.3362 and 3363 of 1987 are vitiated by fraud, without jurisdiction, nonest in law and void and consequentially to set aside all the orders made therein and restore A.No.165 of 1981 along with the suit.

(c) The respondents on appearance filed Application No.6571 of 1994 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint alleging that it did not disclose any cause of action. The said application was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The first applicant alone filed OSA No.54 of 1996 against the order impleading the second respondent as respondent No.7. The Division Bench allowed OSA No.54 of 1996. Pending the appeal, the second plaintiff who was impleaded as 7th respondent in OSA No.54/96, filed an affidavit declaring that he did not want to pursue Application No.165/81. The respondents filed Civil Appeals, and they were also dismissed by the Apex Court. Under the stated circumstances, the defendants 1 to 3 filed A.No.5183 of 2006, while the defendants 5 and 6 filed A.No.30 of 2007 seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 read w