JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Heard. It appears that the plaintiff had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 17.03.2021 in her favour despite a caveat petition having been filed by the respondent/defendant on 09.03.2021 prior to passing of such order.

2. In G.C. Siddalingappa vs. Veeranna, (1981) AIR Karnataka 242, it was held as under:-

"Section 148-A (3) of Civil Procedure Code is a condition precedent for serving an application on caveator before passing interim order etc."

3. In C. Seethaiah vs. Government of Andra Pradesh and others, (1983) AIR A.P. 443, it was held that:-

"also, when a caveat is lodged it becomes not only th duty of the Court but also of the petitioner and his counsel to bring to the notice of the Court that caveat has been lodged and the matter may not be heard exparte etc."

4. In M. Krishnappa Chetty and another vs. P.E. Chandrasekaran @ Chandran, (1993) 1 MadLJ 18, it was observed as follows:-

"The proper procedure to be adopted in all cases where caveat has been filed is for the plaintiff/ petitioner to serve copies of the plaint and application on the caveator's counsel or the caveator before filing them in court. He must inform the caveator or h