Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. These appeals are filed, questioning the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge in vacating the interim order granted in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs in the suit filed by them, seeking to set aside the sale of the property by the 1st defendant/mortgagee invoking Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. 2. Though originally the above appeals have been admitted on 30.10.2006, a Division Bench of this Court has categorically made it clear that the Bench was not inclined to grant interim order, suspending the order vacating the interim stay passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the Bench directed respondents 3 and 4 not to alienate, sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the suit property and not to create any new tenancy or to accept the surrender of tenancy from any tenants without prior permission of the Court. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the suit is now ripe for hearing after framing of the issues and hence, it is suffice that a direction be issued to the Registry to list the case at an early date. 4. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and having regard to the fact that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, vacating the interim order already granted, has not been altered virtually, nothing to be adjudicated on merits in this case. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that since the respondents have been depositing the rents into the Court, for payment of statutory dues towards the property tax, water tax etc., they may be permitted to pay the same out of the amount deposited in the Court by passing necessary directions. The said order of direction, directing the respondents to deposit the rent into the Court, was passed by the learned Single Judge. Now that entire matter is relegated to the learned Single Judge, it is well open to the respondents to make the present request before the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the interim order passed in this appeal on 30.10.2006 would be impediment for them in doing the said exercise. Now that entire matter is relegated to the learned Single Judge, it is well open to the respondents to make the present request before the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the interim order passed in this appeal on 30.10.2006 would be impediment for them in doing the said exercise. When the main appeals are dismissed as nothing to be adjudicated, any interim order passed in the said appeals would automatically merge with the final order passed in the said appeals and hence there would not be any impediment for the respondents in doing the said exercise. 7. If the case is ripe for hearing, Registry is directed to list the case at an early date after ascertaining the convenience of the learned Single Judge. 8. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the cross objections of the respondents are also dismissed. Since the entire matter is relegated to the learned Single Judge, it is well open to the Cross Objectors to get implead themselves as parties to the suit after satisfying the Court that they are proper and necessary parties for the complete adjudication of the lis in issue in the suit, if they so advised. No costs.