Legal Service India.

com

Law Articles
SEARCH

Caveat Petition
A detailed analysis of Caveat Petition under the CPC, 1908.

Author Name:   hindushree

Jack Martin XBS 15 Outdoor …

A detailed analysis of Caveat Petition under the CPC, 1908.

Caveat Petition
(Section 148A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

A Caveat is a Latin term which means, 'let a person beware' originated in the mid 16th
century. In law, it may be understood as a notice, especially in probate, that certain
actions may not be taken without informing the person who gave the notice. It may
simply be understood as a warning. In the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 (hereinafter,
the Code) it was inserted under section 148A by the recommendations of the Law
Commission of India's 54th Report and was inserted by the CPC (Amendment) Act 104
of 1976.

The Section:
The Section talks in brief about the caveat petition. A caveat petition is a
precautionary measure which is undertaken by people usually when they are having a
very strong apprehension that some case is going to be filed in the Court regarding
their interest in any manner.

The word 'Caveat' is not defined in the Code. However, in the case ofNirmal Chand v.
Girindra Narayan,the Court had defined the word Caveat, wherin it said, A Caveat is a
Top
caution or warning given by a person to the Court not to take any action or grant
relief to the other side without giving notice to the caveator and without affording
 g g g
oppurtunity of hearing him.

The Section 148A of the Code reads as under,

148A. Right to lodge a caveat.

(1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or
proceedings 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 caveator) shall serve a notice of
the caveat by registered post, acknowledgement 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.

There are ve basic ingredients to the section, which are discussed in brief,
i. Who may lodge a Caveat? (Clause 1)
Any person claiming a right to appear before the Court,
·Where an application is expected to be made
·Where an application has already been made
·In a suit or proceeding instituted
·In a suit or proceeding which is about to be instituted
May lodge a caveat thereof. It is substantive in a nature.

ii. Duties of the Caveator (Clause 2)

This clause is directive in nature. The person by whom the Caveat has been lodged is
called a Caveator. He shall,
·Serve a notice of the Caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due
·On the person by whom the application has been made
·On the person by whom the application is expected to be made

iii. Duty of the Court (Clause 3)

After a Caveat has been lodged under Clause 1, if any application is filed in any suit or
proceeding, the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the Caveator. This
clause is mandatory in nature.

iv. Duties of the Applicant (Clause 4)

It is directive in nature and says that, where a notice of any Caveat has been served
on the applicant, he shall furnish, at the expense of the Caveator, Top
·A copy of the application made by him.
·Copies of any paper or document which has been filed by him in support of his
 Copies of any paper or document which has been filed by him in support of his
application.
·Copies of any paper or document which may be filed by him in support of his
application.
v.Life of a Caveat Petition (Clause 5)
The life of the petition is 90 days, from the date on which it was lodged. The only
exception is, if the application already exists, or has been made before the said
period, the clause ceases to exist.
All the above five ingredients are vital to a Caveat petition all the above are to be
followed austerely.

Object and Scope of the Section:

The object of this section is to safeguard the interest of the Caveator, who is ready to
face the suit or proceedings which is expected to be instituted by his opponent,
affording an opportunity to be heard, before an ex parte order is made. Also, to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, so as to save the costs and conveniences of the Courts.
The Scope of the section was laid down in various cases. In the case of Nirmal Chand
the Court had said that any party affected by an interim order can file a Caveat
petition. Also, in the case of Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil
Kadeesa Umma, the court opined that a person who is a total stranger to a
proceeding cannot lodge a caveat.

Important cases under the Section:

A. Reserve Bank of India Employees association & Anr. V. The Reserve Bank of
India and Ors.
In this case, the appellants had filed a Caveat, apprehending an application which
may be filed by the respondent in the present case. It was a revision petition under
section 115 of the Code. The application was for grant of an injunction against
restraining them from holding any meeting or, staging any demonstration or resorting
to any other form of direct action or playing musical instruments, beating of drums,
using microphones, etc., within the premises of the Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad
Branch.

A caveat petition was filed on 01-10-1980 apprehending the above, for which a notice
was served on the plaintiff on 08-10-1980. On 27-10-1980, copies of the intended
application for interim relief, relevant papers and documents were served on the
Caveators. The plaintiff's also informed the caveator's that they will be moving the
application on 28-10-1980. The case was not heard on 28th and was just passed over.
It was later heard on 30-10-1980, and an order of injunction was passed without
giving any notice to the caveators.

Caveators contended that the interim orders of injunction passed by the court on
30.01.1980 was null and void, as it was passed without jurisdiction, contrary to section
148A of the CPC, 1908. The issues were that,
1. Whether the order of the learned Judge injuncting the present caveators without
giving a notice is null and void ?
2. Whether the order stands till it is set aside according to the procedure known to
law ?

It was argued that,

a) The term “notice of application” mentioned in clause(3) is not defined under the
code.
b) However, it cannot relate to anything except the date of hearing, which is well
established by a simple reading of the section. Top
c) The failure is a failure with respect to jurisdiction or merely its procedure?
d) If jurisdictional failure, the order is null and void.
e) If procedural failure, the order needs to be set aside in an appropriately constituted
legal proceeding.

The court in the case at hand opined, The powers of a Civil Court are too sacrosanct
to be allowed to be diluted or to be curtailed by a mere remote implication. I,
therefore, hold that as there is no specific provision declaring any action taken by the
Court contrary to its mandatory duty under Sub-section (3) to give a notice would be
void, the order passed by the Court below on 30-10-1980 is not a nullity. In other
words, it appears to me that the mere lodgment of a caveat would not deprive the
Court of its power to pass an order even if the caveat or was not informed of the dale
of hearing of the matter. As the lodgment of a caveat is merely a right to be informed
of the hearing date and it has no effect by way of curtailing the powers of a Civil Court
to pass an appropriate order on the merits of the case, I hold that the order passed in
this case on 30thOctober, 1980 is not without jurisdiction and is, therefore,
operative till it is set aside in appropriate proceedings

B.Santhosh v. Jagat Ram & Anr.

Smt. Santosh is a widow who was fraudulently deprived of the properties of her
husband, by her own brother-in-laws. Her husband died in 1985, while she was
issueless. Daya Ram and Jagat Ram approached her for the settlement of properties
and took her to Manhendragarh, making her believe that they would help her in
mutating and registering the properties in her name. On 26.03.1985, original decree
was passed wherein, she said that she was asked to give her thumb impressions on 3-
4 papers and also was asked to say yes to any questions put forth. Later the
respondents started to threaten her that the land was theirs and she had no right
over it. She filed this appeal to her original suit, asking for the proper title.
Respondents pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. Court agreed that the
decree dated 26.03.1985 was a result of a fraud. The respondents went for an appeal
in the appellate court wherein the court said that it was a proper consent decree and
did not involve fraud. Another appeal was also filed at the HC, which was
subsequently dismissed, and later this present case was taken at the SC. Appellant
contested that the consent decree was a classic example of fraud and the decree at
the second appeal was a classic example of non-application of mind.

A caveat was filed by the respondents for which the appellant gave a reply which was
filed, wherein she had accepted the decree and did not challenge it then. The trial
court rightly held the fact that when the caveat was filed in 1985, the lady did not
have an issue with respect to the challenging the decree. On 30.9.1985, this caveat
was filed which is around 6 months after the original application was filed. The
question was,' Whether on the basis of caveats, could summons be issued by the
civil courts?' However, a summon was issued and other party had come to the court,
on basis of a caveat.

Comments of the Court with respect to the Caveat:

§“Appellant was again brought to the Court in pursuance of the so-called summons
served on her through Bailiff in the proceedings under Section 148A of the CPC and
her statement was also got recorded. It is not known as to how a Caveat application
was got registered and a summons was sent on the basis of a Caveat application,
treating it to be an independent proceedings. Such is not the scope of a Caveat
under Section 148A of the CPC.” (Para 10 Page 5)
Top
§“Nothing has been shown to us in the nature of an order passed by the Court on the
basis of the so-called Caveat. We are convinced that this was nothing, but a very
poor attempt to get the fate of the appellant sealed by getting her statement
recorded. Para 10 Page 5)

The Court in this case opined that, We are of the firm opinion that a whole suit No.
253 of 1985, decree passed thereupon on 26.3.1985 and the subsequent Caveat
proceedings were nothing but a systematic fraud. There cannot be a better example
of a fraudulent decree. We are anguished to see the attitude of the Court, who passed
the decree on the basis of a plaint and a Written Statement, which were filed on the
same day. We are also surprised at the observations made by the Appellate Court that
such circumstance could not, by itself, prove the fraudulent nature of the decree. A
fraud puts an end to everything. It is a settled position in law that such decree is
nothing, but a nullity.”

C.G.C. Siddalingappa v. G.C. Veeranna

It is a Civil revision petition which is directed against an order dated 28.02.1981

granting an interim order of stay. The matter was, that the respondent filed a suit for
declaration for title and for a permanent injunction with respect of a certain
immovable property, along with which an application for interim injunction was filed.
An ex-parte order of the temporary injunction was passed. Petitioner filed an
application for vacating the ex-parte order of temporary injunction, which was
granted on 25.02.1981. On the same day, the petitioner filed a caveat apprehending
the respondent to filed an appeal after modification of the interim order. The caveat
was lodged after sending a copy of the same to the respondent by a registered post
with acknowledgement due.

As expected the respondent also had rightly filed an appeal along with an application
for temporary injunction. The court also rightly server a notice on the caveator which
was returnable by 06.03.1981. While this was the case, the appellant filed an
application for advancing the case to 27.02.1981. The Court took the case on
28.02.1981, and also passed an interim order. On 28.02.1981, the respondent also
filed an application under O.41 R.5 r/w S.115 of the CPC, 1908 for staying the order
under appeal.

The issue is,

i. “Whether order dated 28.02.1981 is jurisdictionally valid?”
ii. “Whether the judge could have passed an ex-parte order in a case where a
caveat was led?

The petitioner contested that the interim order was illegal and without jurisdiction as
the notice was not relied upon and an order was passed. The respondent argued that
it was not compulsory for the court to serve the notice on the respondent. It was held
that, “The provision regarding service of notice as contained in sub-section (3) is
mandatory and non-compliance with it defeats the, very object of introducing Section
148-A. Consequently, it follows that the breach of sub-section (3) vitiates the order
passed thereof.”

The three cases give us a broad picture of the Courts approach towards this section.
There is an predicament with respect to the interpretation of the section and its
clauses. It is with the judiciary to decide in the nature of the clauses, as it differs from
case to case.
Top
Conclusion:
The Court has said that a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution of India,
 e Cou t as sa d t at a p oceed g u de a t c e 6 o t e Co st tut o o d a,
does not entertain a Caveat petition. It also applies for execution proceedings and
proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no doubt that the said
parameters can be stretched by means of an imperative process, however, the very
necessity of the provision cannot be put on stake by the Court due to the
complications of the Court. The section should be followed scrupulously by the
Courts.

End-Notes
# Nirmal Chand v. Girindra Narayan, AIR 1978 Cal 492.
# Supranote 1
# Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil Kadeesa Umma, AIR 1991 Ker
411.
# Reserve Bank of India Employees association & Anr. V. The Reserve Bank of India
and Ors.,AIR 1981 AP 246
# Supra note 4
# Santhosh v. Jagat Ram and Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 251
# Supra note 6
# Ibid
# Ibid
# G.C. Siddalingappa v. G.C. Veeranna, AIR 1981 Kant 242
# Ibid
# Harikrishnan v. Jacob, AIR 2005 Ker 220
# Jeyaram v. Ajjanna, ILR 1986 Kart 3583
# Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, (2010) INSC 51

ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3

Print this Article

Author Bio:   I am a 2nd year student of LL.B (Hons) in Intellectual Property Rights at
IIT- Kharagpur. Previously I had completed my B.E. in Civil Engineering (Gold Medalist).

Email:   hindushree@gmail.com Website:   http://www.legalserviceindia.com
Views:  51064
Comments  :  

How To Submit Your Article:

Top
 Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles
Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles
Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!

Online Copyright Registration in India

Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com

Jack Martin XBS 15 Outdoor …

File Divorce in Delhi - Right Now!

File Your Mutual Divorce -
Call us Right Now at: 9650499965 / or email at: tapsash@gmail.com

Top
Institution of Suit and its Essentials

Jurisdiction of Civil Court and Place of

Suing

Order 37, CPC, Summary Suits

Award of cost under cpc

Necessary Party And Proper Party in CPC

Transfer Petition in Supreme Court of

India-All about

How to Apply for Non -Availability of Birth

Certificate (NABC)

Jurisdiction Of Civil Court Under Civil

Procedure Code

The Inherent Powers of the Court

Chances of getting Anticipatory Bail in

cases of 498a/406

Top
 Lawyers in India - Search By City

Delhi Mumbai Kolkata Chennai

Chandigarh Pune Siliguri Chandigarh
Allahabad Nagpur Durgapur Hyderabad
Lucknow Nashik Janjgir Coimbatore
Noida Ahmedabad Jaipur Eluru
Gurgaon Surat Ludhiana Belgaum
Faridabad Indore Dimapur Cochin
Jalandhar Agra Guwahati Rajkot
Vapi Jalgaon Amritsar Jodhpur

Lacoste Analog Green Dial

Men's Watch-2010763

Rs. 5,223.00
(details + delivery)

339 Comments Sort by Top

Add a comment...

Kartik Bagchi
The Union Cabinet is all poised to table an amendment to the marriage laws, which, in the event of a
divorce, would give the wife an equal share of not only the property acquired by the husband during or
before the marriage, but also his inherited or inheritable property. This proposed amendment is already
creating a furore.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 17 · 6y

Mallikarjuna Sharma
That is quite insane proposal. Self-acquired property can be disposed of at will - is the established
law and this contradicts it. Even if elements of social or public interest are there, those should not
totally drown the established law. The maintenance provisions should be made more stringent Topand
adequate by reform but not such divesting of property for a song.
 q y g p p y g
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 10 · 2y

Veeraswami Panjan
Mallikarjuna Sharma It is not divesting of property for a song Sharmaji, when two join in wedlock,
they flurish and family become established. This society was men dominated, is being men
dominated and I feel bad and continue to be men dominated. Hence, to safeguard the interest of
women folk who have to face so many illtreatment are protected through this historic measure.
Why not we support.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2 · 1y

Lakshmirajyam Jonnalagadda
Execute documents of all the property in the name of your beloved wife and then you will face the
music. men are the strong enemeies of the men and idiotically they see cruelity in men and the
regular and continuous female mess in houses which lead to the disastrous state of affairs for the
men folk and it has become a regular irony and more than 90% of women who seek divorce recite
the stupid stanza that their live is full of thorns and many impedements espeically after marriage
as if their life at their parental houses ran on golden carpet. Present day should be taken into
consideration to ascertain present day oproblems and the days of great great grand fathers or the
inception times of this Kali Yuga.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 6 · 47w

Show 3 more replies in this thread

Tukaram Gaude
hi
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 5 · 6y

Jenny Kay
I am very happy today with my family. My name is rose sarah living in USA, My husband left me for
a good 3 years now, and i love him so much, i have been looking for a way to get him back since
then. i have tried many options but he did not come back, until i met a friend that darted me to
Dr.Jude a spell caster, who helped me to bring back my husband after 2 weeks. Me and my
husband are living happily together today, That man is great, you can contact him via email
liberationlovespell@gmail. com… Now i will advice any serious persons that found themselves in
this kind of problem to contact him now a fast solution without steress.. He always hello, now i call
him my father. contact him now he is always online email (liberationlovespell@gmail. com) or
contact him on his whatsapp mobile line +2348034062173
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 3w

Brijesh Mithaulia
Jenny Kay : Thank you Rose Sarah. I am Brijesh Kumar Mithaulia from India. I am in similar
situation today, only genders have changed. I have contacted father Dr Jude and has asked me for
some details. Will send him shortly.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2w

Brijesh Mithaulia
Its such a coincidence that I found your blog.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2w Top

Sh 1 l i thi th d
 Show 1 more reply in this thread

Angel Vijayvidya
Can anyone help me.i am suffering from dowry harassment.i am mentally have depressed from my
husband.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 3 · 5y

Nilesh Pawar
Go to Police Station and file Section 498A of IPC
if getting Physical harrasment you can file Domestice Violence in the appropriate Court and get
Protection from Husand & relatives of husband
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 10 · 2y

Abhinav Vishnu
What's ur actual problem, u r not mentioned facts here
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2 · 2y

Abhinav Vishnu
Is it belongs to dowry ,or, cruelty,or , harrassment, domestic violence,or ,adultry,or, desertion, what
is ur actual problem
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 2 · 2y

Show 10 more replies in this thread

Anita Rao
India being democratic country and having protective laws for women , its high time to have special courts
for women to try cases exclusively women cases only...........
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 20 · 5y

Sharon Chatterjee
woman courts is no solution it fact we need capable judges who are not appointed politically
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 28 · 4y

A Singh
Sharon Chatterjee Right
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 6 · 1y

Muneeta Dhiman
By demanding women courts, we ourselves are encouraging gender discrimination in our country.
We can't encourage and demand gender discrimination at the same time. It's time to have more
courts and efficient judicial system. Let's demand and create that!!!
Like · Reply · Mark as spam · 12 · 51w

Show 10 more replies in this thread

Top
Load 10 more comments
Facebook Comments Plugin

Top
Top