What is the effect on interim orders after dismissal of main suit/petition for default and restoration it? by: P. G. Yatnal, Advocate, Bengaluru.

An important  question always haunts in the mind of the legal practitioner is- Dose an interim order passed during pendency of proceedings come to en end if  the main petition/ suit dismissed for default and does it automatically revive on restoration of main petition/suit in an recalling application or appeal/revision?

Dose an interim Order of maintenance survive irrespective of dismissal of maintenance application filed under DV Act or in any other law?
There is no statutory provision clarifying the issue whether an interim order passed under Section 23 of  DV Act survives despite dismissal of main petition for default. As the DV Act is a recent enactment, much water has not flown under the bridge, however, to understand the issue, we need look into the decisions rendered in respect of  Order 39 of CPC, which deals with  powers of the Court to pass interlocutory orders and which is in pari  matiria with Section 23 of DV Act.
Oldest case decided by Allahabad HC on the issue was in Ram Chan vs Pitam Mal (1888) ILR 10 All 506. Question was- dose an interim order of attachment becomes functus officio as soon as main petition disposed off. In para 8 of the judgment held that-
"on the 2nd February 1886, there was any litigation pending in any Court; and if I were to hold that the attachment of the 11th January 1885, subsisted daring that interval, I should be laying down the untenable rule that an ad interim order survives the pendency of the Main litigation itself; and indeed if I were to bold this, I should be driven to the logical conclusion that such interim order of attachment subsists for ever whether there is or is not an appeal, unless and until such order is expressly withdrawn. I hold therefore inasmuch as the suit in which the attachment of the 11th January 1885 was made terminated in dismissal on the 30th March 1885, that attachment ceased to be operative after that date, and that, since no further proceedings are alleged to have been taken to attach the property in execution of the High Court's decree of the 2nd February 1886, there was no valid attachment subsisting on the 1st February 1887, when the judgment-debtor's properties were sold by auction"
However, in shivaraya vs Sharanappa AIR  1962 MYS , has laid a equitable principle and it was held that an interim order survive irrespective of dismissal of suit and automatically continue after restoration of main petition unless a country order is passed.

In several others cases courts have held that an interim Order would not automatically revive. vide  Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow vs Ved Prakash on 25 September, 1975 AIR 1976 All 264.

Unltimatly, in  Vareed vs Sosamma    in 2004 (6) SCC  SC held that an interim Order would revive automatically immediately restoration of suiy. Thus it could be conclude that the legal position relating to the issue in hand is settled as of now by the decision of Hon'ble SC in Vareed case and 'automatic restoration theory' is in force.

By- P. G. Yatnal, Advocate, Bengaluru.