Point of law: Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various Courts while interpreting power under Section 151 CPC has held that when no specific provision is there, under which, relief can be granted, then, Courts have ample powers under Section 151 CPC to pass orders for doing substantial justice to parties and in interest of justice.

ORDER:

1. Questioning the docket order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, in I.A.No.486 of 2022 in I.A.No.1226 of 2021 in O.S.No.138 of 2016, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have filed O.S.No.138 of 2016 for grant of perpetual injunction by way of restraining the defendants, their men, agents, henchmen and any other person claiming under the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and during pendency of the said suit, interim injunction order was in subsistence and the same was made absolute vide order 27.02.2017 in I.A.No.705 of 2016 in O.S.No.138 of 2016, but, thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default on 01.12.2021. That immediately thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1226 of 2021 for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 01.12.2021 and restoring the suit to file. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.486 of 2022 seeking interim injunction order by way of restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment pending disposal of I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the main suit. It is stated that the lower Court has not been passing any order in the above I.A. seeking temporary injunction and taking advantage of the same, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Reboti Ray v. Sashi Kanta Budhia @ Agarwal, (2006) 3 GAUHATI LAW REPORTS 42 and prayed this Court to give a suitable direction to the lower Court regarding maintainability of I.A.No.486 of 2022 filed for passing of interim injunction order pending disposal of I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the suit.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and has stated that without there being any cause of action, the petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel has stated that the lower Court has issued notices in I.A.No.486 of 2022 and posted the matter to 06.06.2022 for filing of the counters and thereafter, the same is being adjourned from time to time. It is stated across the bar that I.A.No.1226 of 2021 filed for restoration of the suit, which was dismissed for default, and I.A.No.486 of 2022 filed for grant of interim injunction orders, are posted for advancing the arguments on 29.07.2022. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Having regard to the fact that the applications filed by the petitioners are coming up for advancing the arguments on 29.07.2022, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits or demerits of the case and is confining itself to the question as to whether an application seeking temporary injunction orders pending adjudication of the application filed for restoration of the suit is maintainable or not.

5. Admittedly, pending the suit, the interim injunction orders were passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the same were made absolute vide order dated 27.02.2017, but, subsequently, due to the order of dismissal of the suit for default, passed by the Court below on 01.12.2021, the interim injunction orders earlier granted have come to an end and not in subsistence.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari v. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, (1985) 3 SCC 53; Bankim Chandra v. Chandi Prasad, AIR 1956 Pat 271 and Tavvala Veeraswami v. Pulim Ramanna, AIR 1935 Mad 365 held that the orders which were passed prior to the dismissal of the suit will automatically get revived, once the suit is restored to file. But, the question before this Court as to whether the temporary injunction order, pending adjudication of the interlocuto