1. 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. 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. 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.

4. 4. Per contra, Sri M.S.N. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the respondents would maintain that in the light of the view expressed by this Court in a recent decision, the appellate Court after recording reasons in elaboration came to the conclusion that there are no merits in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and accordingly dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with costs. The Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as it is only an interim order to safeguard the interest of both the parties, the present Revision petitioners as well could have moved the Court praying for vacation of the said interim order in stead of preferring a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal or a further

C.R.P. to this Court. The learned Counsel relied upon certain decisions and also would further maintain that in the interest of justice it would be just and proper to maintain the interim order and remit the matter to the Court of Court of first instance to decide the application on merits after affording opportunity to both the parties. The Counsel also pointed out that subsequent thereto the Revision petitioners also entered appearance before the Court of first instanced but had not chosen to file counter and this conduct also may have to be taken into consideration while deciding this Civil Revision Petition.

1. 5. Heard the Counsel on record, perused the order made by the Court of first instance and also the order made by the appellate Court in C.M.A.No.31/2008.

6. As already aforesaid, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision petitioners as against an order made in C.M.A.No.31/2008 dated 6-1-2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge,

Ongole. Several of the facts appear to be not in serious controversy. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki while ordering urgent notice restrained both parties from making constructions ion I.A.No.525/2008 in O.S.No.69/2008. The learned Judge also recorded pendency of the caveats. The appellate Court in C.M.A.No.31/2008 aforesaid formulated the Point for consideration at para-6, relied on the decision of this Court in Rodde Chandraiah Vs. Rodde Madunamma 2007(5) A.L.D. 248 and came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it may have by the taken that reasonable opportunity had been provide