Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. These two appeals appeared under the caption for admission. The learned counsel for the first respondent Bank appeared before the Court. These two appeals concentrate and challenge the order of the learned Single Judge who issued notice to the respondents in the Interlocutory applications for injunction to restrain the respondents therein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/applicants and also to restrain them from alienating or encumbering the property. In those applications, notice was ordered to the respondent’s returnable by 19. 2009. Pending the same, these two appeals have been brought forth. 2. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants when the appeals were taken up for admission is that the appellants are apprehending that if the respondents are allowed to proceed further with the proceedings, pending in their hands, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellants. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity to prefer these appeals. 3. The Court heard the submissions made on either side and looked into the materials available, in particular, the order under challenge. 4. Admittedly, notice was ordered to the respondents to appear on 19. 2009. When the matter appeared before the learned Single Judge, interim injunction as the one asked for before this Court was asked for and the same was heard and the learned single Judge thought it fit to issue notice to the opposite parties so that the other parties should also be heard, following the principles of natural justice, of being heard. When notice was on transit, these appeals have been brought forth. 5. The Court is unable to appreciate the way in which the appeals have been brought forth. When notice has been ordered to the respondent’s side, the appellants have hastily come before this Court by filing these appeals to get interim injunction in the hands of the appellate forum, which in the considered opinion of the Court should not be granted. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. 6. Since it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case where early redressal should be given, the learned Single Judge is directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same as early as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.