JUDGMENT :

JEEVAN REDDY, J.:— These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise from a common order in two interlocutory applications. I.A. No. 866/1988 was an application filed by the defendants for a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from evicting them from the suit malgie in pursuance of the eviction orders obtained by the plaintiffs, or otherwise. I.A. No. 911/1988 was a petition filed by the plaintiffs to exclude the counter-claim put forward by the defendants in their written statement, claiming specific performance of the agreement of sale. The learned III Addl. Judge dismissed I.A. 866/1988 and allowed I.A. 911/1988. These two appeals are accordingly filed by the defendants.

2. Plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit malgie, and the defendants tenants therein. Plaintiffs filed an eviction petition, R.C. No. 152/1981, and obtained an order of eviction. An appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. The tenants carried the matter to this Court in C.R.P. No. 3408/1984. In this Civil Revision Petition the tenants (defendants) filed a petition, C.M.P. No. 18062/87, to take into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties, whereunder the plaintiffs a