TMI Blog1933 (5) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endants from interfering with his exercise of this office and enjoyment of the honours and emoluments attached to it and similar other reliefs. The District Munsif granted the injunction. There was an appeal to the District Court of West Tanjore. The learned District Judge reversed the order of the District Munsif and dismissed the application for injunction. Against the order of the District Judge the present revision petition was filed on the 26th October, 1932. Some time after the revision petition was admitted, the suit was called on for hearing and as both parties were not present it was dismissed for default but soon after it was restored to file and the suit is now pending. It is now contended that the effect of the dismissal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the attachment : before judgment ceased to have force. As to this argument the learned Judge observed: It is difficult to see how that can be a hardship which the law commands. 3. I agree with this observation. The case should be decided, not with reference to considerations of hardship but with reference to what the law is. If it is the law that the restoration of a suit does not restore the interlocutory orders the consideration of hardship is irrelevant. Another case relied on by the learned advocate for the respondents is the decision of Page, C.J. and Mya Bu, J. in Pindi v. U Thaw Ma I.L.R. (1931) 9 Rang. 472. In that case the learned Chief Justice observed with reference to the decision of Phillips and Devadoss, JJ. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugust, 1916, the defendant's heirs sold the property in dispute. On 5th January, 1918, an application was made to set aside the abatement and to restore the suit and it was restored. In that case the facts are such that even if it is held that the restoration of the suit restored the interlocutory orders the order can operate only from the date of the restoration and cannot affect any intermediate alienation between the abatement of the suit (May, 1916) and its restoration in January, 1918. The opposite position is so untenable that one does not feel any difficulty about I that case. But to agree with that case, does not dispose; of the matter before me, and in my humble opinion the question before Page, C.J. In a case where there is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revision petition to the High Court would all be restored because they are in the nature of pendants to the suit. I would therefore disallow the preliminary objection. This view seems to be in accordance with the observations of myself and Jackson, J. in Selvarayan Samson v. Amalorpavmadham (1927) 55 M.L.J. 262 and consonant with the interests of justice. 5. Now coming to the merits of this revision petition, in the first place it seems to me that the view taken by the District Judge is correct. 6. Though the judgment of the High Court in the former litigation between the present defendants and the trustees of the temple does not bind the present plaintiff because he was not a party to that suit, still the fact remains that the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
