K.K. Sasidharan, J.

1. Whether interlocutory application for injunction is maintainable even before the admission of execution petition filed to execute a foreign judgment and decree is the core issue that arises for consideration in the application in A. No. 1245 of 2016 filed under Order XIV Rule 12 of Original Side Rules.

The facts in outline:--

The applicant obtained a money decree against the Respondents 1 and 2 from the High Court of Justice, "Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court on 12 June 2012 in Claim No. 12. (Folio No.1439). Since the decree was not satisfied, the English Court passed a 'Worldwide Freezing Order' against the assets of respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as Judgment Debtors) on 10 July 2014.

2. The applicant filed proceedings before the Supreme Court of Seychelles to register the judgment passed by the English Court. The first applicant in the mean time initiated proceedings to declare him as insolvent. He was adjudged insolvent by the Supreme Court of Seychelles on 21 July 2014. The Official Receiver was appointed as the Receiver and Manager of the Estate of first respondent. Thereafter, by order dated 18 January 2016, the Supreme Court of Seychelles approved the post bankruptcy composition and cancelled the declaration of bankruptcy order against the first respondent. The applicant was a party to the order dated 18 January 2016.

3. The applicant thereafter filed the Execution Petition before the Master contending that with a view to defeat the decree, the first respondent has transferred his assets and the other respondents are in possession of the properties in Trust for the insolvent. The applicant filed interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC to injunct the respondents from alienating or encumbering the schedule properties pending disposal of the Execution Petition. The learned Master issued notice to the respondents in the application to grant leave to file execution petition and injunction, pending disposal of the leave to sue application.

4. The applicant filed Application No. 616 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Master issuing notice in the application to grant leave to file execution petition and injunction petition.

5. This Court dismissed the Application No. 616 of 2016 by order dated 3 March 2016 primarily on the ground that appeal under Order XIV Rule 12 CPC is not maintainable against the order passed by the Master issuing notice to the parties.

6. The applicant filed an application in O.A. No. 72 of 2016 along with Application No. 616 of 2016 to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the immovable property shown in the schedule to the execution application. This Court granted a limited interim order without deciding the legal question raised by the respondents and directed the Master to decide the matter on merits.

7. This Court by order dated 3 March 2016, directed the Registry to post all the pending applications before the Master on 7 March 2016. However, it was posted only on 8 March 2016. Before the master, Thiru. A. Shamsudeen Raja, learned counsel, filed an unsigned memo, dated 8 March 2016 stating that though he took notice earlier on behalf of respondents 1 to 15 and undertook to file vakalath, he is now appearing only on behalf of respondents 3, 4, 6 and 12. The learned Master simply made an endorsement on the memo and notes paper, without even opening the memo to ascertain as to whether it was actually signed by the counsel. The learned Master refused to extend the interim order.

The order dated 8 March 2016 reads thus:--

"Memo is filed by D/H counsel and respondents 3, 4, 6 and 12 is perused. The Hon High Court ordered it is for the master to take a decision on merits with regard to the extension of interim order beyond 8.3.16. On perusal of records its not numbered. Considering all these aspects, this Court comes to a conclusion that the extension of interim order