JUDGMENT : V.M. VELUMANI, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 11.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.378 of 2011 in O.S.No.320 of 2011 by the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai. 2. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No.320 of 2011 on the file of the I-Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed the said Suit in O.S.No. 320 of 2011 for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent also field I.A.No.378 of 2011 for an order of temporary injunction and an ad interim injunction. The learned Judge by order dated 06.04.2011 granted ad interim injunction restraining the petitioners from preventing the respondent discharging the duties as Trustee of the first petitioner trust and Director of Academies as he performed prior to the meeting held on 17.02.2011. The second petitioner filed counter affidavit along with petition to raise the interim order. The learned Judge did not hear the matter and pass order in injunction application and petition to raise interim order. The petitioners filed C.R.P.No.822 of 2011 to strike off O.S.No.320 of 2011 from the file of the learned I-Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, filed by the respondent. On 27.04.2011, this Court suspended the interim injunction granted by the trial Court. By the order dated 17.08.2011, this Court struck off the Suit in O.S.No.320 of 2011 from the file of the learned I-Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. The respondent filed S.L.P.(C)No.9563 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was converted as Civil Appeal in C.A.No.2941 of 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court with following direction; “We accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court with a request to it to hear and dispose of the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India afresh in accordance with law The question whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable may be examined by the High Court, but only for the limited purposes of determining whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and whether the plaintiffs had suppressed any material facts or information from the court, as alleged by the defendants-respondents”. 3. 3. As per the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court after hearing the matter by the order dated 17.10.2012 allowed the C.R.P.(MD)No.822 of 2011 and struck off the Suit in O.S.No.320 of 2011. Aggrieved by the said order of this Court, the respondent filed S.L.P.No.9831 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondent and 11 others filed O.S.No.9503 of 2011 before the VII-Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. On 23.12.2011, the learned Judge granted an ex-parte interim injunction against the petitioners and other Trustees. The fourth petitioner and other trustees filed C.R.P.(MD)No.5222 of 2011, before the Principal Bench of this Court. The Principal Bench of this Court by the order dated 28.02.2012, directed the fourth petitioner and others to approach the trial Court for vacating the interim injunction and ordered status quo as on date of that order i.e., 28.02.2012 to be maintained. Against the said order S.L.P.(C)Nos.9688 of 2012 and 9847 of 2012 were filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These S.L.P.(C)Nos along with S.L.P.(C)No.9831 of 2013 and Civil Suit No.10559 of 2014 filed by the respondent were heard together on 25.11.2014 and separate orders were passed. In Civil Appeal No.10599 of 2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted that matter to the trial court with following direction; “We, therefore, direct that in the present case also the learned trial court will also consider afresh the entitlement of the plaintiff-appellant to an order of injunction and until the same is so decided, the earlier order passed shall remain in force.” 4. After the matter was remitted to the trial Court, the petitioners and respondent appeared before the trial court. The fourth petitioner filed counter affidavit in I.A.378 of 2011 in O.S.No.320 of 2011 and the second petitioner also filed additional counter after obtaining leave of the Court. The I.A.No.378 of 2011 was posted on 25.01.2016 for enquiry as last chance. The petitioners marked 20 documents as Ex.R1 to R20 and completed their argument in I.A.No.378 of 2011. The application was posted to 01.02.2016 for arguments on the side of the respondent. On that day the respondent filed 8 applications for various reliefs. The learned Judge numbered two applications only and rejected other applications and memo and adjourned I.A.No.378 of 2011 to 11.02.2016 for arguments. The application was posted to 01.02.2016 for arguments on the side of the respondent. On that day the respondent filed 8 applications for various reliefs. The learned Judge numbered two applications only and rejected other applications and memo and adjourned I.A.No.378 of 2011 to 11.02.2016 for arguments. On 11.02.2016, the learned Judge framed issues and posted the suit to 10.03.2016 for trial and closed the I.A No.378 of 2011 on that day (11.02.2016) itself. Against that order present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge has categorically held that the respondent is not co-operating with conducting enquiry in I.A.No.378 of 2011 after obtaining interim order. In view of the said finding the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the I.A.No.378 of 2011. The learned Judge failed to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the trial court to consider the application filed by the respondent for injunction afresh. The learned Judge having held that the respondent is not co-operating to dispose the injunction application as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 3A, erred in closing the said application which shows the non-application of mind by the learned Judge and it is contrary to the materials on record. The learned Judge erred in closing the injunction application inspite of specific direction given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to hear the injunction application afresh and pass orders. The petitioner brought to the notice of the learned Judge, the judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, convicting the respondent in C.C.No.58 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 447, 323, and 506(II) IPC. The learned Judge also failed to take note of the fact that the respondent is declared as proclaimed offender in C.C.No.1725 of 2013, pending before the learned XVIII- Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The learned Judge failed to see that a convict or proclaimed offender cannot be a Trustee of Public Trust. Having heard the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and marking all the documents, the learned Judge ought to have passed orders on merits in accordance with law. The learned Judge having held that the respondent is dragging on the proceedings by filing applications ought to have dismissed the I.A.378 of 2011, on merits in accordance with law. 6. Having heard the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and marking all the documents, the learned Judge ought to have passed orders on merits in accordance with law. The learned Judge having held that the respondent is dragging on the proceedings by filing applications ought to have dismissed the I.A.378 of 2011, on merits in accordance with law. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit is ripe for trial and the learned Judge has framed necessary issues and posted the suit for trial on 10.03.2016. The respondents is ready to get on with the trial and therefore there is no necessity to pass orders in I.A.No.378 of 2011 and in the circumstances, the learned Judge has rightly closed the application for injunction. The criminal case and conviction referred to by the petitioner have nothing to do with the present suit. Only with a view to prejudice the mind of the learned Judge, these allegations are made out. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent appeared before XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate on 19.01.2016. 7. From the materials, it is seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the trial Court to consider the injunction application afresh and pass orders. Inspite of this specific order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Judge failed to consider I.A for injunction and pass orders on merits. The learned Judge closed the injunction application contrary to the specific directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. In the circumstances, C.R.P is allowed, the order of the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, dated 11.02.2016, closing I.A.No.378 of 2011, is set aside. The application in I.A.No.378 of 2011 is restored to file. The said application has to be heard and order has to be passed on merits in accordance with law, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the I Additional Sub-Judge, Madurai is sitting only for two days at Madurai and sitting for 3 days in Camp Court at Melur. Both the counsels requested that both suits and all the applications may be transferred to Principal Sub-Court, Madurai for early disposal. Both the counsels requested that both suits and all the applications may be transferred to Principal Sub-Court, Madurai for early disposal. Considering the submission made by the learned Senior counsel and counsel for the respondent, the learned I Additional Sub-Judge is directed to send the entire case bundle to the Court of Principal Sub-Judge, Madurai, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receiving entire case bundle, the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Madurai, is directed to hear I.A.No.378 of 2011 and pass orders as expeditiously as possible in any event, not later than 15.06.2016. The learned Judge is directed to file compliance report to this Court. It is open to the petitioners to contend that the respondent is not entitled to continue as Trustee, in view of his conviction and being declared as proclaimed offender. If said contention is raised, the learned Judge shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is also closed.