JUDGMENT
Y.V. Narayana, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 21 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal filed this Appeal against the order dated 16-5-1995 made in I.A. No. 294 of 1995 in C.M.A. No. 2 of 1995 by the learned Vacation Civil Judge (Addl. District Judge), Warangal.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 12-00 in S.No. 132 of Keshavapur village, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant of the respondent under lease agreement dated 21-11-1992 in respect of the said land. The respondent denied about the existing of the lease in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said land. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, granted temporary injunction in respect of Ac. 3-00 only out of Ac.12-00 and refused to grant injunction in respect of remaining Ac.9-00. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. In appeal CMA No. 2/95, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 294/95 seeking temporary injunction in respect of the remaining Ac.9-00 also. According to the plaintiff, the trial Court erred in considering the lease only in respect of Ac. 3-00; that the lease in question cannot be split up under law; as such the trial Court ought to have granted injunction in respect of total Ac.12-00 of land. The respondent opposed that application by contending that there is no lease existing in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Ac. 12-00; that basing on the alleged licence granted by the Mining Department, the injunction was considered to that extent and as such it should be suspended. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the Counsel for both sides and after perusing the entire record, passed order directing status quo obtaining as on 16-5-1995 to be maintained and further directed the plaintiff to carry out mining operations in respect of Ac. 3-00 by having ingress and agress to the said land from the road-side and the respondent shall not cause interference to the plaintiff to that extent. The lower appellate Court also directed the respondent not to disturb the machinery and material belonging to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also permitted the respondent to carry out mining operations in respect of 21/2 acres of land as shown in the plan annexed to the licence proceedings.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred this appeal, assailing the same as contrary to law and opposed to facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate Court is not right in taking into consideration the lease granted in favour of the respondent on 15-5-1995 and passing the impugned order. It is further contended mat the appellant is granted lease in respect of the entire extent of Ac.12-00 of land in S. No. 132; that the owners of the land received the lease amount also and that the appellant filed the receipts passed by the owners. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the order of interim injunction granted by this Court on 31-5-1995 is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 148-A of C.P.C. He also contended that the appellant failed to furnish the copies of the application filed by him. He further contended that Sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of CPC enjoins on the Court duty to serve notice of the application filed by the appellant on the respondent, who filed caveat. In support of his contention he relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in C. Seetaiah v. Govt. of A.P., and another decision reported in M.G. Housing Colony Dev. Society v. Devangapuri Gram Panchayat, 1995(1) ALT 29 (NRC).
5. The intention of the Legislature is that the caveator must be furnished with copies of petitions and documents filed by the other side and must be heard before any orders are passed and for this purpose imposes duty on both the Court and the applicant under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 148-A CPC respectively and that no orders are passed by the Court ex parte, when a caveat is filed. In the instant case neither the appellant served the copies of necessary documents on the caveator-respondent before filing the application; nor the Court served the notice of the application filed by the appellant before passing the ex parte interim injunction order. Therefore the interim injunction order passed by this Court on 31-5-1995 is illegal.
6. Coming to the merits of the case, the lower appellate Court took into consideration the lease granted on 15-5-1995 in favour of the respondent and passed the order impugned in this appeal, which is proper, just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs.
7. The lower appellate Court is directed to hear the case on 27-7-1995 to which date the matter was posted for hearing and dispose of the same in accordance with law.