Pandu Karnudu vs Volek Koya Bangala Raju

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—Whenever a Caveat has been filed, it is the duty of the Court to see that the Caveator has to be issued a notice, without hearing the caveator, it is neither desirable nor permissible for the court to pass an interim order. In this case, a caveat has been filed much prior to the filing of the appeal. The lower Court passed an interim order without hearing or giving an opportunity to the caveator. In cases where a caveat has been filed, and it was not placed before the court at the time of hearing the case, it is the duty of the Presiding Officers to take appropriate action against the concerned clerk for not bringing the caveat to the notice of the court. In this case eventhough a caveat has been filed, the other side was able to get an order and the crop has been taken away, and the mischief has already been achieved either by the negligence of the staff or by the part played by the respondents herein at the time of obtaining the order. Hence the lower Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.