( 1 ) M. F. A. No. 49/1994 appeared on board before this Court for orders on 9-2-1995. Respondent-3 to the appeal had filed an I. A. for early hearing. It was his contention that the interim order passed by this Court was prejudicial to him. It was further contended that the other respondents had already applied to the High Court to vacate the interim order and that this Court rejected the application. The respondents filed I. A. III praying that this Court should reconsider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. It is relevant for me to point out that the dispute relates to certain properties and that the plaintiffs before the trial Court have contended that their shares of the joint family properties should be carved out and allotted of them. They allege that some of the respondents have been acting prejudicially to the Interest of the joint family and it was further averred in the plaint that there are admissions in the earlier litigations to the effect that the disputed properties constitute joint family property. The trial Court had originally passed an order restraining the defendants from alienating the properties pending disposal of the suit, bu