( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 13-10-2004 in I. A. No. 921 of 2004 in o. S. No. 357 of 2004 passed by the Principal senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C. for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to file his report.

( 3 ) PETITIONER is the 4th defendant ino. S. No. 357 of 2004 on the file of Principal senior Civil Judge s Court at Tirupathi. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The other facts are not required to be mentioned in detail for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition.

( 4 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, in thisorder, parties will be referred to according to their array in the suit

( 5 ) THE undisputed facts are that on13-10-2004 the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants. Along with the suit, plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 921 of 2004 under Order 26 rule 9 C. P. C. seeking appointment of an advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. On that day (13-10-2004) itself, the court below passed an ex pane order in i. A. No. 921 of 2004 appointing an Advocate- commissioner for the purpose noted in the application. The order passed by the court below reads thus:" Perused the averments of affidavit, plaint and suit documents. Ins contended that the respondents are making hectic efforts to change the physical features in or around the suit locality and if they are allowed to do so, the purpose of filing the suit and petition would be defeated. By taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that if notice is ordered, purpose will not be served and hence notice to respondents is dispensed with. I find prima facie case at this stage for appointment of Advocate Court commissioner. Sri. M. Nagaraju, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner to note down the physical features of petition schedule property after issuing notice to both parties or their advocates and receiving work memos if any. Commissioner fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) payable directly by the petitioner. Warrant is returnable by 25-10-2004 and also notice to respondents by then".

( 6 ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order of thecourt below, the present civil revision petition is filed by the 4th defendant in the suit.

( 7 ) SRI V. Krishnamohan, learned Counselappearing for the 4th defendant (petitioner herein), vehemently contends that the impugned order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside as the Court below had failed to issue notice and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 4th defendant before passing the same inasmuch as the 4th defendant had lodged a caveat under Section 148-A of the Code of civil Procedure with the Court below much prior to the institution of the suit.

( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the 4thdefendant had lodged a Caveat with the court below under Section 148-A of the code of Civil Procedure (for short "the code") on 5-9-2004, making a specific request to the Court to issue prior notice to him in case the plaintiff files a suit and an application seeking any interim injunction or any other interim order. It is not also in dispute that the said caveat was served on the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 13-10-2004, meaning thereby that the institution of the suit was after lodging of the caveat by the 4th defendant and undisputedly during the period of validity of the said caveat.

( 9 ) IN this context, it is needless to say thatsection 148-A of the Code is a specific provision made in the Code to facilitate a party, who expects that a suit or proceeding against him would be instituted and an interim order would also be sought for in that suit or proceeding, to seek issuance of noti