MATHAI Vs. GEORGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly submitted that in this Special Leave Petition an interim order passed in a suit has been challenged, but during the pendency of this petition, the suit has already been decided. Thus, this Special Leave Petition has become infructuous and it should be disposed of.

(2.) It is further noted that this Court has referred an issue with regard to powers to be exercised by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. On account of increasing pendency of cases in this Court, by virtue of an order dated 19.03.2010, this Court has referred the issue to the Constitution Bench with regard to interpretation of Article 136 of the Constitution of India so as to restrict its scope, possibly with an intention to see that if this Court restricts its powers under Article 136, arrears of cases pending in this Court may not increase further. Much has been said with regard to the said issue especially in the following cases: Pritam Singh vs. The State, 1950 SCR 453 at page 457, this Court held as under:

(3.) Penu Balakrishna Iyer & Ors. Vs. Ariya M. Ramaswami Iyer & Ors., 1964 7 SCR 49 at page 53 this Court held as under: