ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The appellants instituted a suit for the defamation, permanent injunction and damages against the defendants-respondents. In the said suit before the High Court on an application seeking interim relief of restraining the defendants from using defamatory language and sending similar defamatory E-mails, the High Court vide order dated 04.01.2021 restrained the defendants from making any defamatory remarks. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, two appeals were preferred, one by the defendant No. 2 ‘T.S. Natarajan’ and the other by the defendant No. 3 ‘Oberoi Splendor Flat Owners Association’. 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, the defendant No. 1 who was not a party in any of the appeals but got himself impleaded as party-appellant, had appeared and stated that he wishes to withdraw the E-mail dated 18th October, 2019 which is annexed as ‘Exhibit-OO’ in the paperbooks of the aforesaid appeals, unconditionally. 6. This permission was granted without there being any application to the above effect by the defendant No. 1. 7. Accordingly, one of the appeals bearing No. 59 of 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn qua defendant No. 1 and also qua defendant No. 2 ‘T.S. Natarajan’ upon the statement made by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf and the other appeal No. 60 of 2021 was directed to be listed separately. 8. Further, the Appellate Court permitted defendant No. 1 to file an application in the suit itself for his deletion permitting the suit to continue against the other defendants. 9. It appears to be quite strange that in the appeals preferred by two of the co-defendants respectively, the defendant No. 1, who was subsequently added as a party on a mere statement, was permitted to move an application for his deletion from the suit and the same was permitted. The permission, if at all for deletion of the defendant No. 1 from the suit has to be considered and decided by the Trial Court only and the action of the Trial Court in this regard could not be pre empted by the Appellate Court. There was no need for any such direction or permission from the Appellate Court. 10. The permission, if at all for deletion of the defendant No. 1 from the suit has to be considered and decided by the Trial Court only and the action of the Trial Court in this regard could not be pre empted by the Appellate Court. There was no need for any such direction or permission from the Appellate Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the present appeals and set aside the order impugned dated 14.07.2022 in so far as it permits the defendant No. 1 to move an application in the suit itself for his deletion and accepting his unconditional withdrawal of the E- mail ‘Exhibit-OO’. 11. Accordingly, the appeal No. 59 of 2021, though, stands withdrawn as permitted by the Appellate Court and appeal No. 60 of 2021 is directed to be decided by the Appellate Court most expeditiously. It is expected that the suit shall be considered on its own merits and if any application for deletion is moved by any of the parties including defendant No. 1, the same shall be considered on its own merits independent and uninfluenced by any observation made in the order impugned which we have partly set aside. 12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.