ORDER C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This application is filed for clarifying the order, dated 08.08.2014, in C.C.C.A.M.P. Nos. 335 and 348 of 2014. 2. Applicant No. 1 filed C.C.C.A. No. 183 of 2004 against the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2003 in O.S. No. 1407 of 2001 on the file of learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed for a sum of Rs. 5,75,353/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. This Court by order, dated 29.07.2004, stayed the decree of the lower Court subject to applicant No. 1 depositing to the credit of the suit in the lower Court 50% of the decretal amount together with costs. There does not appear to be any dispute about applicant No. 1 complying with the said conditional order. However, by order, dated 13.12.2010, this Court dismissed the appeal for default. Applicant No. 1 filed C.C.C.A.M.P. No. 114 of 2011 for setting aside the default order and restoring the appeal. By order, dated 26.04.2011, this Court allowed the said application subject to applicant No. 1 paying costs of Rs. 500/- to the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, with a default condition. As applicant No. 1 failed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 500/-, the order, dated 26.04.2011, stood vacated and the order dismissing the appeal stood restored. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 filed C.C.C.A.M.P. No. 335 of 2014 for restoring the appeal by setting aside the order of dismissal for non-compliance of the order, dated 26.04.2011. It also filed C.C.C.A.M.P. No. 280 of 2014 for condonation of delay of 997 days in filing C.C.C.A.M.P. No. 335 of 2014. A Division Bench of this Court allowed both these applications by separate orders, dated 28.07.2014 and dated 08.08.2014, respectively. Operative portion of the order, dated 08.08.2014, in C.C.C.A.M.P. Nos. 335 and 348 of 2014 reads as under: "Inasmuch as this Court has already condoned the delay in filing the petition to set aside the order of dismissal for non-compliance of the order, dated 26.04.2011, and in view of the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the petitioner is granted a week's time to pay the costs of Rs. 500/- and the order of dismissal for non-compliance of the order, dated 26.04.2011, is set aside and the appeal is restored to file." 4. 500/- and the order of dismissal for non-compliance of the order, dated 26.04.2011, is set aside and the appeal is restored to file." 4. As applicant No. 1 died, applicant Nos. 2 and 3, being his legal representatives, came on record on 22.01.2015. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the present application, applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have stated that in spite of restoration of the appeal, the lower Court is seeking to proceed with the execution proceedings on the ground that no specific order was passed by this Court restoring the interlocutory applications and the interim orders passed therein. 6. Sri N. Bharatb Babu, learned counsel for applicant Nos. 2 and 3, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vareed Jacob vs. Sosamma Geevarghese [(2004) 6 SCC 378] in support of his submission that even in the absence of a specific order of restoration of interlocutory applications and the interim orders passed therein, with the restoration of the appeal they stand automatically restored. 7. In Vareed Jacob (supra), by the majority judgment rendered by V.N. Khare, C.J. and S.H. Kapadia. J., with S.B. Sinha, J. dissenting, it was held as under: "In the case of Nandipati Rami Reddi v. Nandipati Padma Reddy ( AIR 1978 AP 30 ), it has been held by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that when the suit is restored, all interlocutory orders and their operation during the period between dismissal of the suit for default and restoration shall stand revived. That once the dismissal is set aside, the plaintiff must be restored to the position in which he was situated, when the Court dismissed the suit for default. Therefore, it follows that interlocutory orders which have been passed before the dismissal would stand revived along with the suit when the dismissal is set aside and the suit is restored unless the Court expressly or by implication excludes the operation of interlocutory orders passed during the period between dismissal of the suit and the restoration. In the case of Nancy John Lyndon v. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury reported in 1987 (4) SCC 78 , it has been held that in view of Order 21, Rule 57, C.P.C. it is clear that with the dismissal of the title execution suit for default, the attachment levied earlier ceased. In the case of Nancy John Lyndon v. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury reported in 1987 (4) SCC 78 , it has been held that in view of Order 21, Rule 57, C.P.C. it is clear that with the dismissal of the title execution suit for default, the attachment levied earlier ceased. However, it has been further held that when the dismissal was set aside and the suit was restored, the effect of restoring the suit was to restore the position prevalent till the dismissal of the suit or before dismissal of the title execution suit. We repeat that this judgment was under Order 21, Rule 57 whose scheme is similar to Order 38, Rule 11 and Rule 11-A, C.P.C. and therefore, we cannot put all interlocutory orders on the same basis." 8. In the light of the legal position as reflected in the judgment in Vareed Jacob (supra). I am of the opinion that even in the absence of a specific order of restoration of interlocutory applications, they stand revived with the restoration of the main case unless an express order was passed declining to restore such applications. With the restoration of the interlocutory applications, interim orders, which were in force at the time of dismissal of the appeal, automatically got restored. With this clarification, this application is disposed of.