This revision petition is from an order of the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj made on 23.5.90 in Misc. Appeal No. 59 of 1989 from the order dated 7.9.89 passed by the Muasiff, Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 59 of 1989 arising out of Title Suit No. 167 of 1989.

2. The impugned order dated 23.5.90 relates to granting of inter­locutory prohibitory injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC by the Assistant District Judge in the appeal. On 3.7.90, this Court admitted this revision petition and passed an interim order suspending the opera­tion of the impugned order. During the pendency of the revision the main suit had already been dismissed for default on 6.7.90 and an applica­tion under Order 9, Rule 9 for setting aside the dismissal is pending.

3. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the revision petition has become infructuous.

4. Mr. M.A.Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, just in case, if the application for restoration of the suit is allowed all the interlocutory orders in the suit including the stay order of this Court passed on 3.7.90 passed before the dismissal shall be revived. He has referred me to the decisions reported as Nandipati Kami vs. Nandipati Padma, AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 30 (DB), Ranjit Singh vs. Sarda Ranjan, AIR 1981 Pat 102 and Pholaram vs. Ramendra (1989) 1 GLJ 173, to support his contention. This being the position, the revision is to be kept pending till the final disposal of the application for restoration of the suit.

5. Mr. B.K. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the main suit has already been dismissed all ihe interlocutory orders including the interim order of this Court become non est and, therefore, the revision is to be dismissed as infructuous.

6. Under Order 39, Rule 1, C°C, the Court may by order grant temporary injunction until the disposal of the suit or until further order. Therefore, the impugned order is an intermediate order made between the commencement and the end of the suit, but it is not a final decision of the whole controversy, and as such, after the disposal of the suit the interlocutory order becomes inoperative.

7. The question as to whether the interlocutory order passed before the dismissal of the suit for default will be revived on restoration of the suit along with it depends upon the order of the Court setting aside the dismissal. Order 9, Rule 1, CPC, provides that if the plaintiff satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to the costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. la view of the provision under Order 9, Rule 1, the Court may restore a suit without revival of the interlocutory by passing a specific order.

8. For the reasons stated above, to decide the question whether the interlocutory order will be revived or not after restoration of the suit is premature at this stage for the suit may not be restored with or without revival of the interlocutory orders. After dismissal of the suit, the interlo­cutory order of injunction becomes inoperative and, therefore, the revision petition has become infructuous. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the revision petition is dismissed with a direction that, if the suit is restored along with the interim orders, the petitioner may file an application for reopening the revision petition. I do so accordingly. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document