ADDANKI HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. ADDANKI SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri C. Rama Chandra Raju, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri M. S. N. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) THIS Revision is coming up for Admission. This Revision is preferred by the Revision petitioners as against an order made by the learned II additional District Judge, Ongole in C. M. A. No. 31/2008 dated 6-1-2009.

(3.) SRI C. Ramachander Raju, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the appellate Court in stead of allowing the civil Miscellaneous Appeal by setting aside the order made by the trial Court in i. A. No. 525/2008 in O. S. No. 69/2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, totally erred in dismissing the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The learned counsel also would maintain that both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court totally ignored the object of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience ). The Counsel also would maintain that the Courts below failed to consider that when once a caveat had been lodged, it is a condition precedent to effect notice on the application of caveat before passing any order and unless the said condition is satisfied, the Courts are not expected to pass any interim orders affecting such caveators. Incidentally, the learned Counsel also would maintain that while granting interim order, recording of reasons being mandatory, as the same had not been complied with, even on that ground, the order made by the Court of first instance cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.