M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. These Original Side Appeals have been filed challenging the Order dated 27.08.2012 passed in A.No.1163 of 2011 in C.S.D.No.7665 of 2011, A.Nos.2032 of 2011, 2038 of 2011 to 2040 of 2011 and 2188 to 2193 of 2011 in C.S.D.No.7665 of 2011.

2. The appellants started their legal journey thirty years ago. At times they succeeded in small battles but the war did not even begin as the suit is yet to be opened up. The eventful journey has come a full circle. At present, the appellants stand once again at the very starting point of their tiring journey. However, unrelented and undaunted, they once again seek to take a fresh guard to start the voyage through this Court.

3. Background Facts:-

3.1. The background facts covering the case requires a proper narration as it involves a chequered history. The appellants are the father and the son deo. The father of the first appellant was the founder-Trustee. The entire disputes revolves around the proper administration of the Trust, which is a public Trust, having its own object to serve the public in general. The respondents are Trustees and concerns said to be owned by some of them, which according to the appellants are created and being run through the diversion of the Trust funds meant for public purpose.

3.2. The first appellant started the legal proceedings in the year 1978. Thereafter, an application was filed by the second appellant in Application No.165/81 on the ground that he along with his younger brother were very much interested in the Trust and its administration. The proceeding initiated by the second appellant along with his brother was terminated for the non compliance of Order XI Rule 21(1) of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C."). Thereafter an application was filed by the first appellant along with others seeking leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. A Division Bench of this Court granted leave which was duly confirmed by the Apex Court. Two lawyers sought themselves to be impleaded before the Honourable Division Bench which was acceded to. They dropped out and consequently an application was filed by some of the respondents herein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint as the sanction granted by way of consent will have to necessarily encompass all such persons to whom it was given. The Division Bench upheld the contentions on the part of the respondents herein/Trustees, who filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and accordingly, rejected the plaint. When a challenge was made before the Apex Court, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail such remedy as may be available in law.

3.3. The second appellant joined his father in instituting a fresh suit under Section 92 of CPC by seeking leave. It was opposed by some of the respondents. They also filed applications to dismiss the leave to sue application and the proposed plaint. Applications have been filed by others to strike out their names in the proposed plaint and the leave application on the ground that they being strangers, the suit is not maintainable in law and facts as against them under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned single Judge dismissed the application filed for leave and consequently, allowed the applications filed by respondents. Challenge is made by the appellants against these proceedings before us. During the course of hearing, the second respondent died and necessary amendments have been made by the appellants by way of substitution.

4. Heard Mr. H.Karthik Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Dr. Abhishek Manusinghvi, learned Senior counsel for Mr. V.Shanmugam, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, Mr. R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr. V.G. Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7, 9 to 11, perused the records and the written submissions filed by the parties.

5. Findings of the learned Single Judge:-

5.1.