Notice must be served on the counsel.

1. Respondents in CMA.2 of 1999 on the file of Vacation District Judge at Perambalur are the revision petitioners in this revision petition.

2. Respondents herein filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the plaint scheduled properties and also moved I.A. No. 976 of 1996 for injunction restraining petitioners from putting up any construction in the plaint properties. They also wanted petitioners from not dealing with properties by executing a document in favour of third person.

3. A detailed counter was filed by petitioners on 7.3.1999 and as per order dated 23.4.1999. The trial court dismissed the injunction application. Trial Court found respondent has no prima facie case and his right to claim partition was found to be doubtful. Trial Court also held that petitioners have already begun to put up construction and if interim order is granted, petitioners will be put to great hardships. Trial Court further held that respondents has come to Court not with clean hands and even the injunction application as well as plaint suppressed material facts. The injunction application was dismissed with costs.

4. Apprehending that appeal will be filed against dismissal of injunction application, petitioner, through his counsel Rengasamy, Advocate, Thuraiyur, filed a caveat and the same has also been served on respondents.

5. During mid summer vacation, respondent moved CMC .2 of 1999 on 13.5.1999. Perambalur Vacation Court i.e .,subordinate Judge's Court, Ariyalur, took note of the caveat and issued notice to petitioners returnable by 20.5.1999. Notice was not served to counsel who has filed caveat, who has also filed his address of service. On 20.5.1999, lower appellate court found that notice of injunction application was refused by petitioners and on the same date, passed the impugned order. It declared that service to petitioners is sufficient and since they are not represented by any counsel not they have presented themselves before court, injunction application was heard. Prayer for injuction prohibiting from alienation of property was not granted. But, petitioners were prohibited from putting up any construction in the plaint property till disposal of CMA. The said order is under challenging in this revision petition.

6. Since caveat was entered by respondent, I directed learned counsel for petitioners to give notice to the respondent's counsel with typed set of papers. On complying the said direction, I heard the entire revision.

7. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that when caveat has been entered through counsel, notice should have been given to counsel and not to the party. Service of notice to party was not proper and in this case party has been put to great hardships in view of the procedure adopted by vacation court. The case itself was posted on 20.5.1999 at 10.00 a.m and lower court has took note of the endorsement dated 20.5.1999 as if petitioners refused notice on injunction application. Further contention of learned counsel is that notice of appeal nor injunction application was not served on them till 21.5.1999 and passing impugned order is violation of all procedural laws.

8. Alternatively, it is argued that even if petitioner refused to receive notice that by itself cannot be a ground for granting injunction. Trial Court by a detailed reasoning the relief of injunction and has even criticised the conduct of respondent in not coming to court with clean hands. Trial Court has also found that none of the conditions for grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injuries are made out and when that order is before the court, Vacation court should have at least looked into that order before passing interim order. Vacation Court has not even entered a finding that respondent got prima facie case or other grounds under Order 39, Rule 1 which alone entitled the court to grant injunction.

9. Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that the impugned order is on