Ratios:
a. Closure of interlocutory applications when the suit is dismissed for default would not ipso facto result in its dismissal.
b. When suit is restored, the applications closed at the time of dismissal of the suit would be deemed as restored.

D. Murugesan, J.

In O.S.A.No.128 of 2008, the question placed before this Court is as to whether the Court would be justified while restoring a suit which was dismissed for default to revive the order of restoration of the applications which were filed, pending the suit.

2. In O.S.A.No.245 of 2008 the issue that arises is as to whether a suit filed in the capacity of Power of Attorney and dismissed for non-prosecution could be restored at the instance of an individual.

3. Both the appeals arise out of common order of the learned Judge made in the Application No.4494 of 2007 in C.S.No.804 of 1998 dated 112. 2007.

4. For disposal of both appeals, the following facts are necessarily be stated:

.(i) An agreement of sale was executed at Chennai on 31.01.1997 between Sri D. Peter Francis (Appellant in O.S.A.No.128 of 2008) and P.S.B. Educational Trust, Represented by its Managing Trustee Sri. S. Pethaiah (Appellant in O.S.A.No.245 of 2008). For the convenience Mr.D. Peter Francis is referred to as the petitioner and the P.S.B. Educational Trust is referred to as respondent in this appeal.

.(ii) The petitioner filed a suit in C.S.No.804 of 1998 against the respondent and the Director, All India Council for Technical Education, Southern Region, Chennai 6, under Order VII Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. r/w O.S. Rules for a Judgment and Decree (1) directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.19,38,000/-being made up of Rs.17 lakhs towards principle and Rs.2,38,000/- towards interest till 30.9.1998; (2) directing the respondent to pay interest at 24% p.a. on Rs.17 lakhs from 10. 1998 till decree and realisation; (3) directing the respondent by an Order of interim injunction restraining him in any manner utilising the sold and unsold properties, which is the subject matter of the agreement dated 31. 1997 till the entire amount due to the petitioner is paid and for payment of costs.

(iii) Pending the suit, the petitioner filed O.A.No.677 of 1998 seeking for an order of Interim Injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner proceeding with the construction of the properties excluding an extent of 13.60 acres of properties lying at No.46, Thaiyyur Village, Thiruporur Panchayat Union, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kanchipuram District. That application was ordered and as no counter affidavit was filed, the interim order was extended by subsequent order dated 20.7.2009 with a further direction to call the application along with the suit. The petitioner thereafter filed another Application No.1990 of 2001 for a direction to the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.30 lakhs to the credit of the suit to be invested in any Nationalized Bank and the said application was ordered, after hearing both the petitioner and respondent on 112. 2001. In fact a Memo was also filed on behalf of the respondent stating that he has no objection for the petitioner to take possession of the unsold land. While that being so, the suit was called and the same was dismissed for non-appearance on 06.06.2007. Hence, the petitioner filed an Application No.4494 of 2007 under Order IV, Rule 8 C.P.C. read with Order 9, Rule 9 of O.S.Rules for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for non-appearance. By Order dated 112. 2007 the learned Judge while allowing the application restored the suit, but did not incline to order restoration of the applications.

(iv) Under these circumstances, the petitioner aggrieved by the Order of the learned Judge in not restoring the applications while the suit itself is restored, has come up before this Court by way of an appeal in O.S.A.No.128 of 2008. Simultaneously, the respondent aggrieved by the very same order of the learned Judge in restoring the suit, has filed the appeal in O.S.A.No.245 of 2008.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for Mr.D. Peter Francis, Party-in-Person/petitioner and Mr.Narottam Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Let us first take of the issue concerning O.S.A.No.245 of 2008.