NAGARAL RAMULU Vs. KRISHNARNMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order in I A No. 4 of 1992 granting police aid in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) It is seen from the record of the courts below that interim injunction was granted on 20-1-88 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents and it was confirmed oa 11-3-88. But on an appeal preferred by the defendants in C M A No. 4 of 1988, the learned Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy having allowed the appeal, has remanded the case to the lower court for fresh hearing in the light of the documents filed by both the parties.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the parties have filed a joint memorandum agreeing for remand and permitting the trial court to consider the additional evidence filed by them in the appellate court. Whether the remand order is passed on contest or on a joint memorandum filed by both the parties agreeing for remand, the order of the appellate court clearly shows that the appeal was allowed meaning thereby, the final order granting interim injunction was set aside. That being the case the reasoning given by the learned District Munsif that the effect of allowing C M A is to set aside the final order confirming the interim injunction but not the interim injunction granted on 20-1-88 is net correct. The order of interim injunction dt; 20-1-88 has merged itself in the order dt: 11-3-S8 when the interim injunction is made absolute. By allowing the C M A may be on the basis of the joint memorandum filed by both the parties, its effect is to set aside the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff respondents. So the order under revision granting police aid to the plaintiffs- respondents is illegal and is liable to be set aside.