1. The Second Appeal arises from a suit for perpetual injunction restraining trespass. The suit was dismissed by the trial court and the decree was confirmed in appeal. The plaintiff-appellant appears to have filed an application for amendment of the plaint in the appellate court. When the appeal was dismissed for default that application also happened to be dismissed. Subsequently the appeal was restored to file and was disposed of on merits without adverting to the application for amendment The plaintiff-appellant has therefore raised before this court the following questions:

1. Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the amendment application solely on the ground that the appeal was once dismissed for default?

2. Whether the lower appellate court has acted illegally in not restoring the amendment application after the appeal was restored on file?

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the decision in Shivaraya v. Sharnappa, AIR 1968 Mysore 283 and Rami Reddi v. Padma Reddy, AIR. 1978 A.P. 30 contended that once the appeal was restored to file the interlocutory application also stood revived and the court below should have considered that application on merits while disposing of the appeal. The Mysore High Court, relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in Saranatha Ayyangar v Muthiah Mooppanar, AIR. 1934 M d. 49 held:

"The question whether the restoration of suit revives the ancillary orders passed before the dismissal for default of suit depends upon the terms in which the order of dismissal for default is passed by the trial court and also the terms in which the trial court or the appellate court has restored the suit in question. If the Court passes an order dismissing the suit for default without any reference to the ancillary orders and such a suit is restored by the court which dismissed it for default or by the appellate court, then the ancillary orders passed in the suit get revived after the order of restoration of the suit is passed. But where the court which dismisses the suit specifically vacates the ancillary orders passed therein and the court restoring such a suit does not advert to ancillary orders so vacated, then the ancillary orders would not get revived even if there is restoration of the suit."

In the Madras decision referred to above, the view held was:

"The question whether the restoration of a suit does not restore the interlocutory orders or matters as between the parties to the suit, should be decided with reference to the intention of the officer who passed the order restoring the suit As a matter of general rule, the intention would be to restore the suit and all incidental matters. If the is anything expressly appearing against the view that all the interlocutory matters are restored, then one would hold that they are not so restored."

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh also considered the effect of restoration of interlocutory orders passed in the suit prior to the dismissal and said:

"Once the order of dismissal is set aside the plaintiff must be restored to the position in which he was situated when the court dismissed the suit for default. Therefore, it follows that the interlocutory orders, which had been passed before the order of dismissal, would also be revived along with the suit when the order of dismissal has been set aside and the suit has been restored."

3. Even though the question that arose for consideration in these decisions was the effect of the interlocutory orders passed prior to the dismissal of the suit, the ratio of the decision will apply to a case where the question is whether consequential orders on dismissal of the suit would stand vacated on restoration of the suit. When restoration of the suit or appeal is allowed, the parties are to be restored to the same position in which they were situated when the court dismissed the suit or appeal. Then on restoring the appeal dismissed for default, the ancillary matters di