AKBAR ALI Vs. ALLA PITCHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS in CMA.2 of 1999 on the file of Vacation District Judge at Perambalur are the revision petitioners in this revision petition.

(2.) RESPONDENTS herein filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the plaint scheduled properties and also moved I.A. No. 976 of 1996 for injunction restraining petitioners from putting up any construction in the plaint properties. They also wanted petitioners from not dealing with properties by executing a document in favour of third person.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that when caveat has been entered through counsel, notice should have been given to counsel and not to the party. Service of notice to party was not proper and in this case party has been put to great hardships in view of the procedure adopted by vacation court. The case itself was posted on 20.5.1999 at 10.00 a.m and lower court has took note of the endorsement dated 20.5.1999 as if petitioners refused notice on injunction application. Further contention of learned counsel is that notice of appeal nor injunction application was not served on them till 21.5.1999 and passing impugned order is violation of all procedural laws.