IMPORTANT POINT
None of the interlocutory orders could not revive, notwithstanding the restoration of the suit. It cannot be expected that after restoration of the suit, the party in whose favour interim orders were granted, should file fresh application to restore each of the earlier orders. However, situation would be different if, while passing an order dismissing the suit either by implication or by specific order, any of the interlocutory order is vacated. In such case, it may not be reasonable and logical to conclude that on restoration, such interim order will stand restored without any specific order. However, situation will again be different, if specific order is passed at the time of restoration, confining the effect of restoration to certain interim orders only. Otherwise, it can generally be stated that all such interlocutory orders will stand automatically revived on restoration of the suit, with notice to the parties with effect from the date of order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The first plaintiff in OS No.387/2014 of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi, aggrieved by the common order in CMA Nos.6/2018 and 9/2018 of the Sub Court, Tirur which modified by order in IA No.1448/2017 in IA No.2416/2014, has preferred O.P.(C) No.1451/2019.

2. Defendants 1 to 4 in the above suit are arrayed as respondents 1 to 4. Second plaintiff is arrayed as the 5th respondent in the original petition. The suit was one for partition of the plaint schedule properties that belonged to the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Defendants resisted the suit contending that they had exclusive right over the properties and that the properties were not partible. Along with the suit. I.A.No.2416/2014 was filed seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule properties. It was allowed ex parte, by order dated 5/11/2014, restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule property and creating any document on the strength of gift deed No. 1644/1985, claimed to have been executed by the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants. After hearing defendants, the ex parte injunction was made absolute on 12/8/2015. The suit was dismissed for default on 3/6/2016. Suit was later restored by order dated 20/9/2016 in IA No. 1327/2016.

3. According to the plaintiffs, long after the restoration of suit, defendants 1 to 4 executed a sale deed and release deed in relation to the plaint schedule properties, creating rights in favour of a third party on the strength of gift deed No.1644/1985. IA No. 1448/2017 was filed by the plaintiffs in IA No.2416/2014 for arrest and detention of the defendants 1 to 4 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for alleged violation of injunction order. Defendants appeared and admitted the execution of the sale deed. However, they contended that with the dismissal of the suit, injunction stood vacated and did not get revived, in the absence of a specific order. It was contended that after the dismissal of the suit, defendants had filed IA No1330/2016 on 7/6/2016 to intimate the SRO concerned about the dismissal of the suit and the consequential order vacating the interim injunction. This application was allowed and by communication dated 18/6/2016, it was communicated to the SRO concerned. Though suit was restored, the order of injunction granted earlier was not restored. It was contended that in the light of the above, no legally enforceable injunction order existed and the defendants were free to assign the properties .

4. The trial court on facts held that neither at the time of dismissal of suit or its later restoration, there was no specific reference to any of the ancillary order. There was no exclusion of automatic revival of ancillary order by implication also. Hence, the court held that ancillary order was also automatically revived. Consequently, it was hence held that order of injunction was violated by the defendants. However, the court proceeded to hold that the object of Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was not to punish the violator, but to enforce the order of the court. Hence, the request for arrest and detention of the defendants was disallowed and the court ordered attachment of the plaint schedule property that belonged to the defendants, to compel them to obey the injunction order.

5. The above order was challenged by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in CMA No.9/2018 contending that the court below ought to have ordered arrest and detention of the defendants. Defendants 1 to 4 filed CMA No.No.6/2018 challenging the finding that the defendants have violated the order. By a common order, the lower appellate court allowed CMA No.6/2018 and dismissed CMA No.9/2018 holding that the injunction order, which stood dismissed along with the suit for default, will not stand revived automatically with the restoration of the suit. The order of attachment passed in IA No.1448/2017 was set aside. The above order is under challenge in O.P.No.1451/2019.

6. In O.P.(C)No.1239/201