1977 (2) TMI 139 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether interlocutory orders passed before the dismissal of a suit for default remain in operation during the period between the dismissal and restoration of the suit.
2. The enforceability of interlocutory orders after the restoration of the suit.
3. The impact of restoration on actions taken during the period between dismissal and restoration.
4. The effect of restoration on the specific order for deposit of income derived from leased properties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interlocutory Orders During the Period Between Dismissal and Restoration:
The primary issue was whether interlocutory orders passed before the dismissal of a suit for default would be considered in operation during the period between the dismissal and restoration of the suit. The court concluded that once the dismissal order is set aside, the parties are placed in the position they were in when the suit was dismissed for default. This means that the interlocutory orders are revived along with the suit upon restoration. The court emphasized that unless explicitly excluded, the enforcement of interlocutory orders during the period between dismissal and restoration is also revived.

2. Enforceability of Interlocutory Orders After Restoration:
The court held that the restoration of the suit revives all interlocutory orders passed before the dismissal of the suit. This includes orders for maintenance deposits and other directives. The court referenced the Full Bench decision in Veeraswami v. Ramanna (AIR 1935 Mad 365), which supported the view that all proceedings and orders taken up to the date of dismissal must be deemed in force upon setting aside the dismissal. Therefore, the interlocutory orders are enforceable after the restoration of the suit.

3. Impact of Restoration on Actions Taken During the Period Between Dismissal and Restoration:
The court addressed the concern about actions taken during the period between dismissal and restoration, such as alienations or possession taken despite injunction orders. It clarified that such actions would not automatically become invalid upon restoration of the suit. The plaintiff would need to take appropriate proceedings to challenge such actions. The court noted that the rights of third parties or strangers introduced during this period must be considered, and simple restoration of the suit does not affect the validity of such actions.

4. Effect of Restoration on the Order for Deposit of Income:
The specific order in question directed the defendants to deposit 1/4th of the income derived from leased properties within one month of realization. The court acknowledged that implementing this order retrospectively might be challenging since the time for deposit had expired. However, it held that the plaintiff could still call upon the defendants to make the deposits for the period between dismissal and restoration after the suit was restored. The court rejected the contention that this would amount to passing a fresh order, emphasizing that the original order was revived with the restoration of the suit.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the enforceability of interlocutory orders upon the restoration of the suit. The court also clarified that the plaintiff could apply for the appointment of a Receiver if the defendants failed to comply with the deposit orders. The judgment confirmed the revival of interlocutory orders and their enforcement during the period between dismissal and restoration, provided there was no explicit exclusion by the court.

Final Observation:
The Letters Patent Appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal were dismissed with costs, and the court provided clarity on the plaintiff's right to seek the appointment of a Receiver in case of non-compliance by the defendants.