G SUBBAIAH Vs. R SUBBA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 327/90 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. The petitioners also filed IA No. 2131/90 praying for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. That petition was allowed and temporary injunction was granted. Being aggrieved, the defendants respondents filed CM A No. 4/91 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Tirupati. They also filed IA No. 224/91 praying for interim suspension of the Order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court. When the said petition had come up for consideration, it was made krown to the court that the plaintiffs filed a caveat. The relevant portion of the order of the appellate court reads thus :

(2.) It is urgeed for the revision petitioners that when a caveat was filed and when that fact was brought to the notice of the appellate court, the said court had no jurisdiction to pass any order without hearing the other side i.e., the revision petitioners, who are the respondents in IA No. 224/91.

(3.) Sri P. S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the respondents defendants contended that this revision petition itself is not maintainable as the order passed by the appellate court does not amount to a "case decided" as contemplated under Section 115 CPC. In support of the said contention, Uppalapati Venkataratnam vs. Meka Venkata Sravanthi Devi and another is relied upon. In that case, it was held that if an ad interim order is passed, it is a case where order is passed without hearing the other side and the other side has no opportunity to represent his case before the concerned court, and unless an order is passed by the court after giving an opportunity to the other side, it cannot be treated as a case decided. As the impugned order is an ad interim order, it is urged for the respondents defendants, that this revision petition challenging the said order is not maintainable.