( 1 ) THERE are two seperate aspects arising for consideration. The first is regarding the ex parte stay, while the second aspect is in relation to the continuance of the ad-interim stay order already granted, or whether any interim order at all is warranted and if so, to what extent and of what nature. VALIDITY OF THE EX PARTE INJUNCTION GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF

( 2 ) AN interesting question has arisen as to whether in a suit, where there is a Caveator upon whom copies are served but for some reason Caveator s Counsel does not appear and ex-parte, ad-interim injunction is granted, then whether the compliance with Order 39 Rule 3, CPC is still to be carried out or not.

( 3 ) THE submission of learned Counsel for the defendant is that in this case neither process fee was filed nor Dasti summons or Dasti orders were got collected, and no affidavit at all has been filed, even though a one page letter of intimation about the stay order, had been received by the defendant.

( 4 ) THE contention of the plaintiff on the other hand, is that once there is a Caveator which has been served with the papers and the name of the Caveator s is shown in the list, thereafter only letter of intimation is required and there is no necessity to send the complete set of papers all over again or to file an affidavit. In this case it is the admitted position that designated Advocate of the Caveator had been served with the complete set of papers prior to the matter being listed in the Court.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the defendant has in support of his stand relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Ors. , VI (2000) SLT 767= (2000) 7 SCC 695, and the judgment of this Court reported as M/s. Interling Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. S. P. Bangera, 65 (1997) DLT 228.

( 6 ) TO my mind, wherever there is a Caveator who has been served with a complete set of papers in advance of the case being listed in the Court, and the name of the Caveator s shown in the cause list, there can be no necessity for compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reason is simple. Once there is a Caveator who has filed a Caveat, and the compliance of the caveat has been done that party (Caveator) is before the Court and the ad-interim order being passed is not an order of ex-parte nature, or an order at pre-notice stage. As such the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3, CPC would not be attracted at all.

( 7 ) ONCE Caveator has been served with the complete set of papers, thereafter it is not within the control of the plaintiff as to when exactly the case will be listed. The Registry of the Court may raise one or more objections or for any other reason the matter may be listed after a gap of a few days. However as soon as the name of the defendant/caveator s Counsel is shown in the list, that is itself intimation of all practising Advocates, about the case being taken up on the date of listing, and as such the order passed is not an order passed ex-parte or at pre-notice stage.

( 8 ) IN the letter which admittedly was sent by learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and was admittedly also received by the defendants, the complete details of the Suit No. , the date of listing and the orders passed have been communicated by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. He has also conveyed that the complete set of documents stands already served earliest in terms of the caveat. To my mind, the main purpose of such an intimation is to ensure that the defendant came to know about the injunction against him at the earliest and does not have to wait for the Court summons/service of orders in routine course through the Process Serving Agency etc. which may take a longer time. Once the intimation has admittedly been received, at least in the case of the Caveator, there can be no question of the said party claiming the vacation of stay on that count.

( 9 ) THE matter may be considered from another angle a