Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta:-

1. Learned Counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of this appeal.

2. This writ appeal has been directed against an ad interim order passed by the learned single Judge dated 05.07.2013, which is as follows:

“There shall be interim suspension as prayed for.”

3. The undisputed fact is that the interim order was passed ex parte and without requiring any notice to be served. Therefore, we have to examine as to how the interim order is sustainable under law.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argues that this interim order was obtained by practicing fraud upon the Court as his client duly lodged a caveat and that once the caveat is lodged, notice is required to be served mandatorily. This fact was not placed before the learned single Judge. The materials are produced before us to show that the caveat was lodged. Learned Counsel for the appellant also says that this interim order is also not in accordance with the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has been made applicable by virtue of Rule 23 of the Writ Rules of this Court.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, on the other hand, says that the fac