K KALYANASUNDARAM Vs. P KALISWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendants to set aside the order dated 6.2.2008 passed in IA.No.889/2007 in OS.No.245/2007 by the learned District Munsif, Madurai.

(2.) THE brief facts are given below:- THE Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the above said suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 18.8.2006 executed by the 1st Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant as null and void and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending the suit, in IA.NO.581/2007 interim injunction was sought for and when the case was posted on 22.8.2007, the court below had ordered notice and it was finally posted on 10.12.2007 and the petition was closed as the main suit itself had become ripe for trial. Again on 13.12.2007 the Respondent has filed another application in IA.No.889/2007 for the very same relief of interim injunction and pending the said application, the suit itself was posted for trial on 6.2.2008 and an exparte decree was passed on 8.2.2008 since the Defendants did not appear before the court. However, on 8.2.2008 the Petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the exparte decree and the same has been allowed on 17.9.2008. While disposing of the suit as exparte, the court below seemed to have allowed the said application in IA.NO.889/2007 stating that 'since the suit is decreed, the petition is allowed."

(3.) PER contra, Mr.R.Sundar, the learned counsel for the Respondent would contend that only ancillary orders such as striking out defence which are meant to aid and supplement the ultimate decision arrived at in the main suit would stand revived on the restoration of the suit and orders granting temporary injunction do not aid and supplement the ultimate decision of the suit and as such they cannot said to be ancillary orders and does not automatically stand revived. He relied on the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan rendered in the case of Kanchan Bai Vs. Katsidas and others [AIR-1991-Raj-94].