This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order dated 13.02.2015 made in I.A.No.802 of 2014 in O.S.No.5893 of 2013, on the file of XV Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3, 5 to 7, respondents 1 & 2 are plaintiffs and 3rd respondent is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.5893 of 2013 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents 1 & 2 filed the above suit against the petitioners, third respondent and others for declaration declaring that the decree passed in O.S.No.14133 of 1996 dated 20.10.2006 as null and void and not binding upon the respondents 1 & 2 and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners 1 to 3, 5 & 6 and 3rd respondent and others from encumbering the suit schedule property. The petitioners alongwith third respondent filed I.A.No.802 of 2014 in O.S.No.5893 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for rejection of plaint on the following grounds:-

(i) in view of the earlier suit C.S.No.640 of 2010 filed before this Court by respondents 1 & 2, the present suit is hit by principles of rejudicata

(ii) the respondents have not obtained leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC for filing fresh suit.

2(a) According to the petitioners, the respondents 1 & 2 earlier filed C.S.No.640 of 2010 on the file of this Court for declaration of their title. The respondents 1 & 2 were called upon to pay the deficit court fee and they did not pay the same. The respondents 1 & 2 challenged the same by filing O.S.A.No.6 of 2012 and the said OSA was dismissed. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed for non-payment of deficit court fee. The relief now sought for in the present suit was available at the time of filing of C.S.No.640 of 2010 itself and they did not obtain any leave to file subsequent suit.

(iii) the suit is barred by limitation

2(b) The respondents 1 & 2 were aware of the decree passed in O.S.No.14133 of 1996 dated 20.10.2006 in the year 2009 itself and therefore the present suit is barred by limitation.

(iv) plaint does not disclose any cause of action :-

2(c) The present suit filed by the respondents does not disclose any cause of action.

(v) the present suit is abuse of process of court :-

2(d) The petitioners contended that by abuse of process of court, the petitioner has come out with the present suit and is liable to be rejected.

3. The respondents 1 & 2 filed counter affidavit and denied all the above contentions. According to the respondents, C.S.No.640 of 2010 was not decided on merits and the relief sought for in the above suit is different and the present suit is not hit by principles of resjudicata and there is no necessity to obtain leave in the above suit to file any subsequent suit. Respondents 1 & 2 came to know about the fradulent decree only in the year 2013 and therefore the suit is not barred by limitation. Respondents 1 & 2 have stated in Para 14 of the plaint as how the cause of action has arisen. The petitioners are seeking to reject the plaint not based on the averments in the plaint or documents filed alongwith the plaint. The averments made in the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and documents relied on by the petitioners are not relevant to decide the said application.

4. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit, averments in the plaint and documents filed alongwith the plaint, dismissed the application holding that:-

(i) the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law which can be decided only by appreciating the evidence let in by the parties during trial.

(ii) the earlier suit in C.S.No.640 of 2010 was not decided on merits. The respondents have not paid deficit court fee and even when the suit was dismissed for non-payment of deficit court fee, the respondents 1 & 2 can file fresh suit under Order VII Rule 13 CPC.

(iii) the cause of action is a bundle of facts. The averments in the plaint alone is necessary to decide whether the plaint discloses cause of acti