S ASHOKAN Vs. SANTHANALASKHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the order passed in CMA. No:21 of 2002, confirming the order of dismissal passed in I. A. No:2115 of 2001 in O. S. No:481 of 2001 filed for interim injunction, CRP. NO:317 of 2007 has been preferred by the revision petitioner/plaintiffs.

(2.) WHILE so, CRP. Nos:1020 and 1021 of 2007 are filed against the order of return of the petitions field in I. A. SR. No. 10098 of 2005 which were filed to reopen the case and to receive additional documents detailed in the annexure to the petition.

(3.) FURTHER in the case on hand, the plaintiffs have filed by the two Interlocutory Applications defectively and even though ample opportunities were given by the lower appellate court to rectify those defects, right from 16. 8. 2005, the plaintiffs have not chosen to comply with the returns and rectified the defects till delivery of judgment in the CMA, which will only exhibit the supine indifference and careless attitude on the part of the plaintiffs. Thus both the I. As have become infructuous as judgment was delivered in the appeal even before the I. As were taken up on file. If the said two I. As were taken on file after numbering the same, then the lower appellate court would have deferred the delivery of judgment in the appeal. But in the present case, the I. As were not taken on file since there were certain defects, which have not been rectified and represented in time. Therefore, the lower appellate court rightly returned the two I. As (SR) after delivery of judgment in the main appeal. I do not find any illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order of return passed by the lower appellate court. Therefore, these two crps are liable to be dismissed.