William Ayling, J.

1. The circumstances of the case out of which these petitions arise are somewhat extraordinary, and as the course we propose to take is one which we should be sorry to see misquoted as a precedent, I deem it best to set them out in detail. The appellants in Appeal against Order No. 228 of 1917 and petitioners in Civil Revision Petition No. 553 of 19J7 (whom we shall henceforward refer to as appellants) were appellants in Appeal Suit No. 11 of 1903 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. They succeeded, the decree of the Original Court being reversed. The Other side preferred a second appeal to this Court (Second Appeal No. 1983 of 1913). This Court set aside the decree of the Sub-Court and remanded the appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam for disposal according to law. This was on 5th January 1916. Meantime certain changes had taken place in the Courts of the Kistna District. The Sub-Court of Masulipatam, which had disposed of this appeal, was directed to hold its sittings at Bezwada and its designation altered to the Sub Court of Bezwada. A new Court has been constituted under the title of the Temporary Sub-Court of Masulipatam and