Restoration of suit revives prior interlocutory orders and keeps them operative unless expressly excluded.

Restoration of a suit dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 9 CPC ordinarily puts the parties back in the position they occupied before dismissal, so the suit proceeds as if no dismissal had occurred. In that setting, ancillary and interlocutory orders passed before dismissal are also revived and remain operative during the period between dismissal and restoration, unless the restoration order expressly or by necessary implication excludes them. The court noted that third-party rights or acts done when an interlocutory order was not actually in force may require separate consideration, but that does not displace the general rule of revival. The contrary contention failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a suit dismissed for default is restored under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, interlocutory orders passed before dismissal revive and remain operative during the period between dismissal and restoration.

Analysis: On restoration, the effect of the setting aside of the dismissal is to place the parties in the position they occupied when the suit was dismissed for default. The suit proceeds as if there had been no dismissal, and in the absence of any express or necessary exclusion in the restoration order, ancillary and interlocutory orders are also revived. The Court distinguished transactions affecting third-party rights or acts done when the interlocutory order was not actually in force, but held that such illustrations do not alter the general rule that revival of the suit ordinarily carries revival of the interlocutory orders and their enforceability during the interregnum.

Conclusion: The interlocutory orders passed before dismissal were revived on restoration of the suit and were operative during the period between dismissal and restoration. The contention to the contrary failed.

---