Upon restoration of a suit, all previous orders will automatically revive, including injunction orders.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS in Original Suit No. 50/1983, on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Kodangal, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. That suit was filed by the respondents-herein for permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners-herein from interfering with their right to draw water from the suit well, situated in Survey No. 114, for irrigating the lands in Survey No. 151. Interim injunction was granted in I. A. No. 264 of 1983. The suit was dismissed for default in the first instance, but was restored to file, and ultimately the suit was dismissed on 26-4-1993 on merits. Aggrieved by the same, respondents-herein (plaintiffs) filed appeal. A. S. No. 23 of 1993 along with I. A. No. 1054 of 1993 before the District Court, Mahaboobnagar, for injunction. By order, dt. 6-7-1993, the District Court, Mahaboobnagar, granted injunction, as prayed for. Hence, this revision petition by the defendants.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri C. P. Sarathy, submits that, while restoring the suit, O. S. No. 50/1983 to file after it was dismissed for default, a separate order was passed in I. A. No. 264 of 1983 by the Trial Court, as follows:"since the suit is dismissed for default, this petition becomes infructuous. Petition is dismissed without costs". He, therefore, contends that as no separate order was passed by the trial court restoring I. A. No. 264 of 1993, notwithstanding the restoration of the suit, O. S. No. 50 of 1983 to file, the injunction order passed earlier in I. A. 264 of 1983 will not automatically be restored. Strong reliance is placed upon the decision in Shivaraya vs. Shamappa, by Sri Sarathy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, for this proposition. That was a case where, pending restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default, a separate application was filed and injunction was obtained. On those facts and circumstances, it was held, in that decision, that whether the orders passed in interlocutory applications will automatically get restored or not by the restorationof the suit, will depend upon the circumstances of each case and the language adopted in the order restoring the suit. The facts of the present case on hand are totally different and distinguishable. In N. Rami Reddi vs. N. Padma Reddy, a Division Bench of this Court held that by restoring the suit to file, all the orders passed before the suit was dismissed for default, will automatically be restored. In the present case on hand, the order dated, 27-1-1984, in I. A. No. 264 of 1983, was not on merits. That I. A. 264 of 1983 was dismissed as infructuous, as the suit itself was dismissed.

( 3 ) HAVING regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, when once the suit is restored to file, automatically all the orders passed earlier will also revive. Further, the Lower Court has stated that the injunction order granted earlier was in force for a long time and the respondents were drawing the water from the well without any objection.

( 4 ) THEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, I do not find any valid ground for interference in this revision petition. The C. R. P. is accordingly dismissed.

( 5 ) AS there is already a direction by this Court, issued on 11-10-1993, to the learned District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, to dispose of the appeal, A. S. 23 of 1993 on his file, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the above said order dated 11-10-1993, I make it clear that the appeal, A. S. 23 of 1993 should be disposed of by the learned District Judge before February 1994 (i. e. , on or before 28-2-1994 ). Both parties shall cooperate with the District Court for the speedy disposal of the appeal as directed above.

( 6 ) SUBJECT to the above, the C. R. P. is dismissed. No costs.