D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 13-10-2004 in I. A. No. 921 of 2004 in o. S. No. 357 of 2004 passed by the Principal senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C. for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and to file his report. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is the 4th defendant ino. S. No. 357 of 2004 on the file of Principal senior Civil Judge s Court at Tirupathi. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The other facts are not required to be mentioned in detail for the purpose of disposal of this revision petition. ( 4 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, in thisorder, parties will be referred to according to their array in the suit ( 5 ) THE undisputed facts are that on13-10-2004 the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants. Along with the suit, plaintiff also filed I. A. No. 921 of 2004 under Order 26 rule 9 C. P. C. seeking appointment of an advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. On that day (13-10-2004) itself, the court below passed an ex pane order in i. A. No. 921 of 2004 appointing an Advocate- commissioner for the purpose noted in the application. The order passed by the court below reads thus:" Perused the averments of affidavit, plaint and suit documents. Ins contended that the respondents are making hectic efforts to change the physical features in or around the suit locality and if they are allowed to do so, the purpose of filing the suit and petition would be defeated. By taking into consideration all these aspects, I feel that if notice is ordered, purpose will not be served and hence notice to respondents is dispensed with. I find prima facie case at this stage for appointment of Advocate Court commissioner. Sri. M. Nagaraju, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner to note down the physical features of petition schedule property after issuing notice to both parties or their advocates and receiving work memos if any. Commissioner fee is fixed at Rs. I find prima facie case at this stage for appointment of Advocate Court commissioner. Sri. M. Nagaraju, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner to note down the physical features of petition schedule property after issuing notice to both parties or their advocates and receiving work memos if any. Commissioner fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) payable directly by the petitioner. Warrant is returnable by 25-10-2004 and also notice to respondents by then". ( 6 ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order of thecourt below, the present civil revision petition is filed by the 4th defendant in the suit. ( 7 ) SRI V. Krishnamohan, learned Counselappearing for the 4th defendant (petitioner herein), vehemently contends that the impugned order is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside as the Court below had failed to issue notice and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 4th defendant before passing the same inasmuch as the 4th defendant had lodged a caveat under Section 148-A of the Code of civil Procedure with the Court below much prior to the institution of the suit. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the 4thdefendant had lodged a Caveat with the court below under Section 148-A of the code of Civil Procedure (for short "the code") on 5-9-2004, making a specific request to the Court to issue prior notice to him in case the plaintiff files a suit and an application seeking any interim injunction or any other interim order. It is not also in dispute that the said caveat was served on the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 13-10-2004, meaning thereby that the institution of the suit was after lodging of the caveat by the 4th defendant and undisputedly during the period of validity of the said caveat. ( 9 ) IN this context, it is needless to say thatsection 148-A of the Code is a specific provision made in the Code to facilitate a party, who expects that a suit or proceeding against him would be instituted and an interim order would also be sought for in that suit or proceeding, to seek issuance of notice and affording of opportunity of being heard to him before any interim order is passed affecting his interest. In other words, this provision under Section 148-A C. P. C is a statutory relief of being heard when an interlocutory order is likely to be passed by the court affecting his interest or right. ( 10 ) SECTION 148-A of the Code, whichconfers right on a party to lodge a Caveat, postulates certain conditions and procedure. It reads thus:"148-A. Right to lodge a caveat:- (1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof. (2) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), the person by whom the caveat has been lodged (hereinafter referred to as the caveat ) shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgment due, on the person by whom the application has been, or is expected to be, made, under sub-section (1 ). (3) Where, after a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the Court, shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator. (4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the caveator at the caveator s expense, with a copy of the application made by him and also with copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be, filed by him in support of the application. (5) Where a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), such caveat shall not remain in force after the expiry of ninety days from the date on which it was lodged unless the application referred to in sub-section (1) has been made before the expiry of the said period. " ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 148-A ofthe Code requires special attention whereby the Court is obligated to serve a notice of the application, filed seeking grant of an interim order, on the caveator. To put it in a different way, the caveator has a statutory right of notice and hearing on any interlocutory application before any such interim order sought to be passed against the caveator. To put it in a different way, the caveator has a statutory right of notice and hearing on any interlocutory application before any such interim order sought to be passed against the caveator. ( 12 ) THIS situation has been dealt with bya Division Bench of this Court way back in the year 1983 in C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of a P. The Division Bench had elaborately dealt with all the practical situations covering the issue and the purpose and object of section 148-A of the Code. Their Lordships relied upon the decision of a learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court in g. C. Siddalingappa v. G. C. Veeranna and extracted certain observations made by the learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in G. C. Siddalingappa s case, which are reextracted hereunder for ready reference:"when once a caveat is filed, it is a condition precedent for passing an interim order to serve a notice of the application on the caveator who is going to be affected by the interim order. Unless that condition precedent is satisfied, it is impossible for the Court to pass an interim order affecting the caveator. The court would not absolve from serving a notice of the application on the caveator on the ground that he refused to receive the same. Even if the application was served on the caveator, unless the date and the time of hearing of the application was made known to the caveator or his counsel, the requirement of serving a notice of the application on the caveator could not have been dispensed with. " ( 13 ) AGAIN, a learned single Judge of thiscourt in Mayuri Granites v. Venkateswara granites, considering the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 148-A of the code, and referring to the Division Bench decision of this Court in C. Seethaia s case (1 supra), held thus:"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 c. P. C. respectively and that no orders passed by the Court ex parts, 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 parts interim injunction order. Therefore the interim injunction order passed by this court on 31 -5-1995 is illegal. " ( 14 ) AS already pointed out, a duty is caston the Court, by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of the code, to issue notice to the party who lodges a caveat, even if the party making the application for grant of any interim order fails to serve notice of such interim application on the caveator. ( 15 ) IN other words, even if the partyseeking interim order fails to serve notice of such interim application on the person lodging the caveat, the Court is duty-bound to issue notice and an opportunity of being heard to the caveator before proceeding to pass any interim order in any suit or proceeding. ( 16 ) IF the Court passes any interim orderwithout issuing notice to the caveator it would amount to violation and non- compliance of the mandatory requirement of law as envisaged in Section 148-A of the code. In such an event, it must not only be held that the Court had ignored to discharge the statutory duty cast upon it but also failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, and consequently any order so passed shall have to be attached with the disqualification of "nullity". ( 17 ) MR. Meharchand Nori, learnedcounsel appearing for the plaintiff, while vehemently contending that the impugned order does not call for any interference, has drawn the specific attention of this Court to some of the contents of the impugned order, except the sentence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I feel that if notice is ordered, purpose will not be served and hence notice to respondents is dispensed with, I find prima facie case at this stage for appointment of Advocate Court commissioner. ( 18 ) TO say the least, the aforequotedobservations made by the court below are totally in contravention of the provisions of section 148-A of the Code and in total violation of the duty cast upon the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of the code. ( 18 ) TO say the least, the aforequotedobservations made by the court below are totally in contravention of the provisions of section 148-A of the Code and in total violation of the duty cast upon the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of the code. In my considered view the above observations made by the court below amount to refusing to exercise the jurisdiction statutorily vested in it and also the duty cast upon it which has to be dissuaded by all means. ( 19 ) SRI Meherchand Nori, learnedcounsel for the plaintiff further submits that this revision petition does not require consideration and investigation any longes, for, it has become redundant. He points out that after the impugned order was passed, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed and he served notices on the parties and after two adjournments the Advocate- commissioner submitted his report. He therefore submits that the issue involved in this revision does not call for any further investigation or the impugned order any interference. ( 20 ) THIS submission of Mr. Meherchandnori, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that all subsequent events, viz. , the execution of the Warrant of commission and filing of his report into Court by the Advocate-Commissioner are only in consequence to the impugned order which was passed in contravention of the specific mandatory provisions of Section 148-A of the Code, thereby rendering the same illegal. When the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court itself is defective, or in supine violation of the duty cast upon it, not only the impugned order but also all subsequent and consequential proceedings taken would be rendered nugatory and inconsequential. ( 21 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintifffurther contends that the Court can pass ex pane orders also insofar as applications filed under Order 26, Rule 9 are concerned and the present order, at the most, can be taken to be an order passed exparte. ( 22 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that thecourt can pass an ex pane order under order 26 Rule 9 of the Code. But, the said proposition is not applicable where there is a caveat lodged by any party seeking notice to him and opportunity of hearing to his counsel before passing any interim order. ( 22 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that thecourt can pass an ex pane order under order 26 Rule 9 of the Code. But, the said proposition is not applicable where there is a caveat lodged by any party seeking notice to him and opportunity of hearing to his counsel before passing any interim order. In this case, admittedly, the 4th defendant had lodged a caveat with the court below and the impugned order was passed without issuing notice and without affording an opportunity if being heard to the 4th defendant. In the rcumstances, the submission of the arned Counsel for the plaintiff that the impugned order can be taken to be an order passed exparte, cannot be accepted. ( 23 ) JUDICIAL discipline requires not only inthe four walls of the Court but also white reading the provisions of the statutes and in implementation of the law prescribed under the statutes. Total ignorance and defiance shown by the Court to the statutory provision does, and shall, in my considered view, vitiate not only the impugned order but also all other consequential and subsequent proceedings taken pursuant to such an order. ( 24 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, theimpugned order as well as all other subsequent and consequential proceedings taken pursuant to the impugned order, including the report filed by the Advocate- commissioner, are hereby set aside. It is needless to make it clear that the report of the Advocate-Commissioner shall not form part of the record in the suit. ( 25 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.