The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the court's duty to consider the lodgment of a caveat and serve notice on the caveator before granting interim orders.

1. Original Application No.548 of 2008 is filed seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from creating any encumbrance over the Plaint A and B schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

2. Application No.3633 of 2008 is filed by defendants 1 to 4 and Application No.3837 of 2008 is filed by defendants 5 to 10 seeking to vacate the ex parte order of interim injunction granted to the applicant/plaintiff on 30.4.2008.

3. The applicant/plaintiff has contended that on 2. 2008, an agreement of sale was entered between the applicant and the respondents at the office of the sixth respondent in Chennai for a sale consideration of Rs.87,04,000/-. The applicant also paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as advance at the time of execution of the agreement. The respondent also agreed to execute a separate sale deed in respect of the property described in B schedule which exclusively belongs to the fourth respondent. Two draft sale deeds were prepared. One for 2 acre and 14 cents described in A schedule to be executed by respondents 1 to 10 and another for 14 cents of land described in B schedule to be executed by respondents 4 to 6, for approval. Though the applicant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as agreed in the agreement, there was no positive response from the respondents. As the respondents were making attempt to create documents resiling from the agreement, the applicant requested the respondents to honour the commitment. Telegrams were sent followed by notice by the counsel to the respondents asking them to execute the sale deeds, but, the respondents did not turn up to the Registrar’s Office for registration on 4. 2008. Alleging that the respondents are attempting to create encumbrance to defeat the claim of the applicant, the applicant has sought for an order of injunction.

4. Separate Applications were filed by Respondents 1 to 4 and respondents 5 to 10 seeking to vacate the order of interim injunction. They have contended that though Caveat Petition No.891 of 2008 was already filed before the Court, the applicants, who were aware of the pendency of the Caveat Petition filed by the respondents, suppressed the same and obtained an order of injunction against the respondents. The suit itself suffers from factual infirmities. The applicants never contacted any of the respondents. He also did not hand over the copies of the draft sale deeds to the respondents on 33. 2008 as claimed by the applicant. The applicant never contacted any of the respondents on 4. 2008 asking the respondents to have the registration of the sale deeds on 4. 2008. The applicants did not have the capacity to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.67,04,000/-. With mala fide intention to prolong the transaction detrimental to the interest of the respondents and in blatant breach of the obligation cast upon him under the said agreement, the present Suit has been filed. On 4. 2008, one of the representative of the applicant, who was mediating the transaction between them called the respondents over phone and informed them that the applicant had planned for registration of sale of the schedule mentioned property in the afternoon on the same day. But the representative of the applicant came with a Pay Order for Rs.42,80,000/- and informed that he was ready to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.24,24,000/-. But, to the shock and surprise of the respondents, the applicant did not turn up on 4. 2008 to the Sub Registrar’s Office. Two months time contemplated under the agreement had expired as on 4. 2008. The respondents have been automatically relieved of their obligations and the agreement dated 2. 2008 stands cancelled. Therefore, the respondents have prayed for vacating the order of interim injunction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the voluminous documents produced on the side of the applicant would go to show prima facie that the applicant was ever r