ORDER
1. The petitioners filed a suit forpermanent injunction against the respondents for restraining them from interferring with their possession over the plot in dispute. A temporary injunction application was also filed, and an injunction was granted by the order dt. 4-9-90. Subsequently the suit was dismissed for default on 8-1-91. Thereafter a restoration application was filed, and subsequently an order dt. 15-2-91 (Annexure IV) was passed by the trial Court declining to grant temporary injunction. Against the order dt. 15-2-91 the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 holding that since the suit had been dismissed for default on 8-1 -91, no temporary injunction could be granted unless the suit is restored.
2. The restoration application filed by the petitioners was also dismissed for default on 2-4-91 and thereafter an application was moved to recall the order dt. 2-4-91, which is still pending.
3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dt. 15-2-91 and 13-12-91 (Annexures IV and V).
4. In my opinion, the impugned orders are correct and call for no interference. Once the suit is dismissed, whether for default or otherwise, all interim orders came to an end. Since there is no suit pending at present, hence there is no question of grant' of any interim injunction. In the circumstances, I reject this writ petition but direct that the application filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dt. 2-4-91 should be decided within three weeks of production of a certified copy of this order before the trial Court. If this application is allowed then the petitioners first restoration application should be decided within another three weeks thereafter, and if that is also allowed, the temporary injunction application should be decided within three weeks thereafter.
5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
6. Petition dismissed.