Caveat breach and specific performance suit: ex parte injunction must be reheard, while prima facie readiness justified interim protection.

An ex parte interim injunction passed without the caveat under Section 148A CPC being brought to the court's notice was not void, but it had to be vacated and the injunction application reheard on merits. The territorial jurisdiction objection failed because a suit for specific performance simpliciter, without a claim for possession, was not treated as a suit for immovable property in the manner contended. On the interim protection question, advance payment, a pay order for part of the balance, a draft sale deed, and prior notice supported a prima facie showing of readiness and willingness, leaving any dispute about full funds to trial. The interim injunction was restored and continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte interim injunction had to be vacated because the caveat procedure under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure was not complied with; (ii) whether the court lacked territorial jurisdiction in a suit for specific performance simpliciter; (iii) whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for interim injunction by showing readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte interim injunction had to be vacated because the caveat procedure under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure was not complied with.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of caveat requires service of notice by the caveator, notice of the application by the court, and supply of papers by the applicant after notice. If the caveat is brought to the court's notice after an ex parte order is made, the order is not void for want of jurisdiction, but it must be vacated and the application heard afresh on merits. The court found that the interim order had been passed without notice because the caveat had not been brought to the court's attention at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The ex parte interim injunction was liable to be vacated and the injunction application had to be considered afresh.

Issue (ii): Whether the court lacked territorial jurisdiction in a suit for specific performance simpliciter.

Analysis: A suit seeking only specific performance of an agreement of sale, without a claim for recovery of possession, was treated as not being a suit for immovable property in the sense urged by the respondents. The authority relied upon by the respondents was distinguished because it involved a broader claim including possession and different jurisdictional settings.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for interim injunction by showing readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

Analysis: The court relied on the advance payment already made, the pay order arranged for a substantial part of the balance consideration, the draft sale deed, and the telegram and notice issued to the respondents. The dispute about whether the entire balance amount was available on the relevant date was held to be a matter for trial. On the materials then available, the applicant showed prima facie readiness and willingness and a protectable contractual interest.

Conclusion: The applicant established a prima facie case for interim protection and was entitled to interim injunction.

Final Conclusion: The interim injunction was restored and continued until disposal of the suit, while the applications to vacate it stood closed.

Ratio Decidendi: A caveat violation does not render the interim order void, but once the defect is brought to notice the court must vacate the ex parte order and decide the interim application afresh on merits; in a suit for specific performance simpliciter, territorial objection will fail if the claim is not one for recovery of possession and the applicant shows a prima facie readiness and willingness warranting protection.

---