Plaintiff has got right to withdraw suit at any stage of the proceedings.

Both the revision petitions are filed by plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 1999 on the file of principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

2. Material averments in the plaint which are necessary for disposal of the revision petitions could be summarised thus:

It is the case of plaintiff that petitioner Mill is notified as Public Utility service and on 11. 1999, workers of the Mill resorted to illegal strike blocking main passage in front of the main gate, dug up the access road to the distance of about 10 feet and 2 feet depth, thereby causing obstruction to the access by way of ingress and egress of the transportation of goods from and to the Mill and also preventing entry of willing workers into the Mill including the office and maintenance staff. In view of the illegal strike, it became impossible for management to do anything to the willing workers and to make arrangements to work the Mill. Plaintiff therefore filed O.S.No.195 of 1999 praying for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants their men and members from in any manner obstructing its office and all and maintenance staff from entering into the mill premises for doing their routine work and for permanent injunction to restrain defendants, their men and workers in any manner obstructing the movement of vehicles carrying raw materials and finished goods from and to the Mill premises and for other reliefs.

3. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed I.A.No.886 of 1999 praying for interim injunction restraining defendants from obstructing the office staff and the maintenance staff from entering into the Mill premises for doing their work and to restrain them from in any manner obstructing the movement of vehicles carrying materials and finished goods to and from the factory.

4. Lower court held that plaintiff is entitled to injunction, but at the same time it appointed three advocate commissioners directing them to sell the materials lying in the factory. According to plaintiff, those goods belong to third parties with whom plaintiff entered into tie up arrangement and on the basis of that arrangement plaintiff will have to convert those goods and finished goods will have to be supplied to their customers. But trial court while disposing of the injunction application held that commissioner will sell the properties and deposit 2/3rd of the amount which shall be utilised to meet the demands of the workers and the remaining 1/3rd will be utilised for running the factory.

5. Aggrieved by the order, plaintiff came to this Court in C.R.P.No.1679 of 1999 under Art.227 of Constitution of India. This Court refused to entertain the revision on the ground that the order is appealable. Thereafter, plaintiff also preferred C.M.A.No.20 of 1999 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Kallakurichi and the same is pending.

6. It is the further case of plaintiff that after appeal was filed, there was settlement between the management and the workers under Sec.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Mill is also reopened. In view of the settlement, plaintiff wanted to withdrawn the suit for which a memo was filed. Lower court refused to give permission to withdraw the suit, which is challenged in C.R.P.No.2425 of 1999.

7. Defendants also moved an application in I.A.No.1974 of 1999 seeking permission to give police protection to commissioners, who were appointed as per the order in I.A.No.886 of 1999 and which is now pending in C.M.A.No.20 of 1999. Lower court allowed that application. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.2424 of 1999.

8. When the matter came for admission, I ordered notice of motion and the order in I.A.No.1974 of 1999 was also stayed. Further proceedings in the suit was also stayed.

9. Respondents have entered appearance and moved and application to vacate the interim order. Since arguments on interlocutory application as well as revision petitions are same, both parties agreed to have the revision itself disposed of.

10. I