JUDGMENT : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. The 1 st respondent herein, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.2343 of 2025. The case of the 1 st respondent was that, he is the owner of Ac.2.66 cents of land in R.S.No.136/2 of Yanamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. The appellants 2 & 3, had sought to obtain pattadhar passbooks and title deeds to an extent of Ac.1.3050 cents each, even though they were not entitled to any such title deeds or pattadar passbooks. 2. The 1 st respondent, is said to have filed a suit in this regard before the learned II Additional District Judge Cum Metropolitan Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada and a copy of the said plaint was included in the material papers. 3. The 1 st respondent, apprehending that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds would be issued to the appellants 2 & 3, filed the above Writ Petition for setting aside the deletion of the name of the 1 st respondent and for an injunction against the official respondents from entering the names of the appellants 2 & 3 in the revenue records and consequential issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 4. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 03.02.2025, had recorded that a learned counsel had taken notice on behalf of the appellants herein and had directed all the parties not to create any third-party rights either by way of lease, sale or by any other mode of alienation in respect of the subject property, till the next listing. 5. Aggrieved by this Order, dated 03.02.2025, the appellants have moved the present Writ Appeal. 6. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 7. Various contentions, on merits have been raised by both sides. However, this Court is not going into the merits of the case on account of the fact that, the Appeal is being disposed of on a point of procedure. 8. The case of the appellants is that, they had filed a Caveat despite which papers had not been served on them when the matter came up for hearing and an ex-parte order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. 8. The case of the appellants is that, they had filed a Caveat despite which papers had not been served on them when the matter came up for hearing and an ex-parte order has been passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Sri C. Seethaiah Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors, AIR 1983 AP 443 : (1983) 2 AP LJ 196 (AP): (1983) 2 ALT (NRC 2) 25 . In this case, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, had held that, non-service of papers on the Caveator and passing of an interim order without hearing the Caveator would require the said order to be set aside. 11. In view of the said order, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order, dated 03.02.2025 of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the matter. 12. It would be open to the 1 st respondent to press for an early hearing in the matter. 13. In the meantime, enquiry conducted by the Tahsildar may go on. However, final order shall not be passed, in relation to the mutation of the revenue entries for a period of three (03) weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.