This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-03-2007 in I.A.No.78 of 2007 in O.P.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli. The revision petitioner is the first respondent in I.A.No.78 of 2007.

The first respondent herein is the wife of the revision petitioner. She had earlier filed O.S.124 of 2002 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar seeking maintenance. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 28-09-2002 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. Subsequently, the first respondent herein filed a fresh suit as in forma pauperis for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month with retrospective effect. The said suit was registered on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli as O.P.No.18 of 2007. The first respondent also filed I.A.No.78 of 2007 under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CP.C., seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 herein from disbursing Rs.4,00,000/- out of Rs.12,00,000/- payable to the revision petitioner (first respondent therein) towards retirement benefits. In the said application, the Court below, by order, dated 28-03-2007, issued ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 from disbursing the retirement benefits to the first respondent/revision petitioner to the extent of the suit amount until further orders and posted the application to 11-04-2007 for counter. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It is primarily contended by the petitioner that much prior to the filing of the suit for enhancement of maintenance, he had lodged a caveat on 15-03-2007 and pursuant thereto a notice was served on him in I.A.No.78 of 2007 notifying that the said application was posted to 28-03-2007. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner filed vakalath on 28-03-2007 and sought time for filing counter. However, without granting time for filing counter, the Court below had erroneously granted ad interim injunction until further orders, which is contrary to the object and purport of Section 148-A of Code of Civil Procedure.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the decisions of M. Mohan Babu v. Medasani Ananda Naidu (2005(2) ALT 5 ) and Assam State transport Corporation v. Michitribala Das (AIR 1994 Gauhati 35), vehemently contended that Court is bound to issue notice and opportunity of hearing to the caveator before passing interim order. It is contended that mere service of notice to the caveator is not sufficient, but the Court is also bound to give reasonable opportunity to the caveator to put forth his version before an interim order is passed.

Section 148-A of CPC may be extracted here under:

148-A. Right to lodge a caveat:

(1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.

(2) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), the person by whom the caveat has been lodged (hereinafter referred to as the caveator) shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgment due, on the person by whom the application has been, or is expected to be, made, under sub-section (1).

(3) Where, after a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the court shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator.

(4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the caveator at the caveator's expense, with a copy of the application made by him and also with copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be, filed by him in support of the application. (5) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), such caveat shall not remain in forc