The real purpose of the rule of caveat is to provide an opportunity for contesting an injunction before it is made, and the court should recall the order and rehear the matter on contest when a defect in the process of lodging a caveat is pointed out.

1. THIS is a revisional application at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order dated Bench, City Civil Court, calcutta, in Title Suit No. 594/85. Caveat having been lodged, we have heard out this application on contest by the plaintiff-Opposite party.

2. IT appears from the order itself that anticipating the fact that the plaintiff would ask for an order of injunction against the defendants, the defendants lodged a caveat on March 2 5, 1 985, which was registered as caveat No. 176/85. It is not clear to us, as has been, pointed out by the Ld. Judge, himself, how, in spite of such lodging of the caveat, when the plaintiff did actually move the application for injunction on March 28, 1985, the Assistant Registrar made an endorsement on the petition for injunction that there was no such caveat. In the result, the plaintiff obtained an ad-interim order exparte against the defendants on March 28, 1985, and no sooner the defendants came to know about said fact, they filed an application pointing out the aforesaid irregularity and that application was disposed of on April 2, 1985, that is the order now impugned before us in the present revisional application.

The Ld. Judge has dismissed the application. The reason given by the Ld. Judge is that he must proceed upon the Assistant Registrar's endorsement notwithstanding the fact he had earlier observed "there is no denying the fact that a caveat was lodged by the defendants on 28.3.85, the relevant registration No. being 176/85". This is a principle which is difficult to accept. Rules of caveat are meant to give opportunity to the party to contest any claim of injunction before it is made if, as in the present case, caveat was actually lodged before the order was sought for, as has been found by the L d ld. Judge, he could not still proceed "to say that he would proceed on the erroneous endorsement of the assistant registrar. The only course open to the Ld. Judge should have been, when such defect was pointed out, to recall the order forthwith and rehear the matter on contest. This should be the procedure followed to fulfil the real object for the rule of caveat.

3. WE are, therefore, unable to sustain the order passed by the Ld. Judge on April 2, 1985. We set aside the said order. We allow the defendants application dated March 30, 1985, recall the adinterim order passed on March 28, 1985, and we direct the Ld. Judge to hear out the application for injunction forthwith even on the prayer for ad-interim injunction on its merits on contest by the defendants. The revisional application is disposed of accordingly.

Application disposed.