https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297207 The restoration of a suit does not automatically restore interlocutory orders unless expressly mentioned or implied in the restoration order. In this case, interlocutory orders related to an injunction petition were considered pendants to the suit and were restored upon the suit's restoration. Additionally, the District Judge's decision in favor of the defendants regarding the office of Adyapakam was upheld, as the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to override the prima facie view in favor of the defendants. The petition was dismissed with costs, with no jurisdictional issue or irregularity warranting interference. en-us Fri, 05 May 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 13:13:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297207 The restoration of a suit does not automatically restore interlocutory orders unless expressly mentioned or implied in the restoration order. In this case, interlocutory orders related to an injunction petition were considered pendants to the suit and were restored upon the suit's restoration. Additionally, the District Judge's decision in favor of the defendants regarding the office of Adyapakam was upheld, as the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to override the prima facie view in favor of the defendants. The petition was dismissed with costs, with no jurisdictional issue or irregularity warranting interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 May 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297207