ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LTD Vs. K VEERASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these revision petitions, defendants are the revision petitioners. Defendants are aggrieved by the ad-interim injunction granted by the lower court.

(2.) PLAINTIFF was suspended from service, and the same is challenged in O.S.No.1263 of 1998. I.A.No.1051 of 1998 was filed in that case for injunction. Ad-interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, the very same plaintiff was charge-sheeted, and he filed O.S.No.1591 of 1998. I.A.No.1057 of 1998 was filed in that case, and the same is the subject-matter of C.R.P.No.3865 of 1998. In both the injunction petitions, ad-interim injunction was passed. In I.A.No.1051 of 1998, the injunction order reads thus: "Heard. Documents perused. Ad-interim injunction granted till 5.10.1998. Notice, O.39, Rules 1 and 3, to be complied with." In I.A.No.1057 of 1998, the injunction order reads thus: "Heard. Documents perused. Interim injunction granted till 10.12.98. Notice by then. O.39, Rules 1 and 3 to be complied with." The above orders are challenged by defendants on various grounds. But I do not want to go into the merits of the case.