Caveat and interim injunction: failure to serve hearing notice is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity.

An ex parte interim injunction passed after a caveat had been lodged was held not to be a nullity merely because the Court did not serve notice of the hearing under Section 148-A(3) CPC. The duty to serve notice is separate from the caveator's duties to lodge the caveat, serve notice of it, and supply copies of the application and supporting papers. Non-service by the Court was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. As the injunction was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, revision under Section 115 CPC was barred and therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an ex parte interim injunction passed after a caveat had been lodged, but without notice of the hearing being served on the caveator by the Court, was a nullity for want of jurisdiction, and whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable against such an order when an appeal lay.

Analysis: Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 confers on a caveator the right to be informed and heard before the interlocutory application is taken up, but the statutory omission by the Court to serve notice under sub-section (3) does not itself extinguish the Court's power to pass an order on the application. The obligation to serve notice is distinct from the parties' duties to lodge the caveat, serve notice of it, and furnish copies of the application and supporting papers. Failure to comply with the Court's duty under Section 148-A(3) is therefore an irregularity in procedure, not a jurisdictional defect rendering the order void. Since the injunction order was appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 was barred.

Conclusion: The ex parte injunction order was not a nullity and the revision petition was not maintainable.

---