Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) IT has been stated by Sri Manu Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that in title proceedings, against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was preferred. The appeal was decided by the order dated 12.2.2014. The next day on 13.2.2014, the contesting respondents are said to have filed a restoration application, alleging therein that the order dated 12.2.2014 was ex parte and had been passed without hearing them. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 15.2.2014 granted an interim order on the restoration application filed by the contesting respondents. This interim order was challenged by means of a revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had decided the appeal, he becomes functus officio and no order could have been passed, till such time the restoration application itself was allowed. The second submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no reason has been assigned while granting the interim order. The third submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to address all the points that were raised by the petitioner before the revisional Court.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following three judgments: - - 1. Jagdhari and others v. Vth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh and another : AIR 1992 (All.) 368. 2. Thressia @ Kochu Thressia v. Vareetha Thressamma : 2010 Law Suit (Ker.) 960. Rajesh Jain v. Devender Kumar Saigal and others : 2012 Law Suit (Del.) 2676. 3. Perusal of the judgments cited reveals that the judgments of the Kerala and the Delhi High Courts have been passed placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdhari (supra). The facts of the case are that in a suit for permanent injunction, the Trial Court granted interim injunction. The suit was dismissed for default. The restoration application was filed for setting aside the order for dismissal for default. The Trial Court declined to grant temporary injunction, which order was affirmed in appeal holding that since the suit had been dismissed for default, no temporary injunction could be granted unless the suit is restored.
(3.) SINCE the other two judgments cited, follow the ratio laid down in the case of Jagdhari (supra), the same are not being dealt with in detail.;