https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196118 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. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:04:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196118 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196118