1. Heard Mr. K.N. Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. No appearance for the 2nd respondent.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the second defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 184 of 2014, whereas the first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent herein is the first defendant.

3. It is apparent from the records that the first respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 184 of 2014 as against the second respondent and the revision petitioner seeking the relief of:-

(a) Declaration that the clause incorporated in Chapter XXIV Section 60.4 B and C of the amended Constitution to alter the seniority list once in three months is illegal and against public policy.

(b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents or any one claiming under the defendants from issuing any appointment as per the altered list published on 31.03.2014.

(c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from forfeiting the membership of the plaintiff in lieu of filing of the suit.

4. Along with the said suit, the first respondent/plaintiff has filed an application in I.A. No. 407 of 2014 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for granting temporary injunction restraining the 2nd respondent and the revision petitioner/defendants 1 and 2, their men, servants, agents or any one claiming under them from issuing any appointment as per the altered list published on 31.03.2014 and further restraining the first respondent/first defendant from forfeiting the membership of the plaintiff.

5. In so far as the application in I.A. No. 407 of 2014 is concerned, an ad-interim injunction was granted against the revision petitioner/second defendant and the second respondent/first defendant on 05.07.2014. Thereafter, the above said petition had been adjourned on various dates for service of notice to the revision petitioner/second defendant and the second respondent/first defendant and after the service of notice, the said petition was posted on 06.08.2014 for filing objections on behalf of the revision petitioner and the second respondent.

6. Thereafter, the petition had been adjourned to various dates i.e. on 20.08.2014, 27.08.2014, 08.09.2014 and 10.09.2014 for filing counter statement on behalf of the revision petitioner and the second respondent. It is revealed from the records that on 10.09.2014, a counter statement was filed on behalf of them and subsequently, the petition was adjourned to 18.09.2014 for enquiry. From 18.09.2014 to 20.10.2014, the petition had been posted for enquiry. On 29.10.2014, when the petition was taken up for enquiry, the learned trial Judge viz., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil had passed an order as under:-

"The trial in the suit is commenced. Hence, the Court closed the petition with the interim order."

7. This order has been challenged in this revision by the revision petitioner/second defendant.

8. It is significant to note here that once an ad-interim injunction is granted and the petition is taken up for final hearing on subsequent dates, a duty is cast upon the court, which has granted the order of injunction, either to dispose the application on merit within the period of 30 days as contemplated under Rule 3A of Order 39 of Code or if not possible to dispose the petition within the prescribed period, the court shall adjourn the petition on the next hearing date after recording the reasons for not deposing the application within the period of 30 days.

9. It is apparent from the records that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil has granted an ex-parte order of injunction on 05.07.2014. The learned Judge has also directed the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit to comply with Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Thereafter, the petition stood posted on 11.07.2014. In this connection, this court w