The dismissal of a memorandum of appeal does not bar subsequent appeals if procedural issues are rectified.

1. Plaintiff in O. S.387/95 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam is the petitioner in these revision petitions. Respondent in both the revision petitions is the defendant in the said suit. The suit was one to retrain the defendant or anybody under him from forcibly trespassing into the plaint schedule rooms or putting anybody else in possession or alienating the same in any manner to anybody. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. 1423/95 for a temporary injunction on the lines prayed for in the plaint. Ex-party temporary injunction was granted by the Trial Court. Defendant filed his objection to that interlocutory application and prayed for vacating the order of injunction. He also filed I. A. 1512/95 for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the petitioner plaintiff to open the schedule rooms and to permit him to continue there. The Trial Court heard both interlocutory applications i. e., I. A. 1423/95 & I. A. 1512/95 and passed common order dated 29.7.1995. By that order, I. A. 1423/95 was allowed to the limited extent of restraining the defendant from transferring the leasehold right to strangers and from inducting strangers into possession of the plaint schedule premises till the disposal of the suit. On I. A. 1512/95 filed by the defendant respondent, he was allowed to open the plaint schedule premises after obtaining key from the two sets of keys produced in court under memo and to continue in possession of the premises till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by that common order, plaintiff preferred one appeal C. M. A. 91/95 on 8.8.95. When it was realised that the common order passed by the Trial Court on two different interlocutory applications can not be challenged by preferring one appeal, appellant filed a memo asking for return of the appeal. That memo was filed on 10.8.95. Pursuant to that memo, the order of the Trial Court was returned on 11.8.95. When C. M. A. 91/95 came up before court on 14.8.95, the court dismissed that appeal as not pressed. On the same day, i.e., 14.8.95, petitioner, plaintiff in the suit, filed C. M. Appeals 94/95 and 95/95 questioning the correctness of the decision of the Trial Court in I.A. 1423/95 and I. A. 1512/95. The maintainability of these appeals was questioned by the respondent. His argument was that C. M. A. 91/95 was dismissed without reserving any right to the appellant to file fresh appeals. Such a dismissal bars the filing of fresh appeals under O.23 R.1(4) of the C. P. C. The learned District Judge was impressed with the above argument and consequently by the common judgment dated 2.11.95 he dismissed both appeals as barred under O.23 Rule l (4)(b) of the C. P. C. Hence, these revision petitions.

2. As stated earlier, plaintiff filed I. A. 1423/95 praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant and others by an order of injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule rooms or repossessing the rooms or alienating the rooms in any manner to anybody else till the disposal of the suit. Defendant, respondent herein, filed I. A. 1512/95 to direct the plaintiff to remove the locks put up on the front rolling shutter and the back side doors and in case of non compliance to have it removed through court and also restraining the plaintiff from doing anything tending to obstruct the defendants business in the scheduled buildings till the disposal of the suit. These two applications were disposed of by the Trial Court by a common order. That order was against the plaintiff petitioner herein. He challenged both orders by preferring one appeal as C. M. A. 91/95. The prayer in the memorandum of that appeal was :-
" For these and other reasons to be urged at the ti