Interim injunction should not be granted without hearing the caveator when a caveat petition is pending.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Udhagamandalam (In the court of District Munsif, Gudalur), dated 24.5.2000 made in I.A. No. 44 of 2000 in O.S. No. 13 of 2000, which is renumbered as I.A. No. 235 of 2000 in O.S. No. 62 of 2000.

2. It was a suit filed by the first respondent herein for permanent injunction. At the time of filing of the suit, an interim injunction application was filed in I.A. No. 44 of 2000 and subsequently renumbered as I.A. No. 235 of 2000 in O.s. No. 62 of 2000 before the District Munsif, Gudalur. From the materials available on hand, it could be well seen that a caveat petition was filed by the revision petitioners/defendants and it was given number, which was pending. Under the stated circumstances, the lower court without hearing the caveator should not have passed any interim orders. In view of the very pendency of the caveat on its file, an order of interim injunction has been granted, and therefore, the said order has got to be set aside without any hesitation whatsoever. It is brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the said order of injunction has been suspended by this Court. However, the lower court is directed to dispose of the application for interim injunction within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. With the above direction, this Civil revision Petition is closed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also closed.