Project on caveat

Introduction
SCOPE:
Any party affected by interim order can file caveat. (Nirmal
Chandra v. Girindra Narayan (1978)) Person who is total
stranger to proceeding cannot lodge caveat. (Rattil Parkkum
v. Mannil Paadikayil)

NATURE:
Section 148 A Civil Procedure Code Sub-Section (1)
Substantive Statutory right to lodge caveat in civil proceedings
(2) Directive in nature To serve a notice of caveat to applicant
(3) Mandatory Costs obligation on court to serve notice (4)
Directive To furnish a copy of an application and documents
Object:
A caveat protects the caveators interest. The caveator is
already ready to face the suit or proceedings which is expected
to be instituted by his opponent. Hence no ex-parte order shall
be passed against the caveator. The caveat avoids
multiplicity of proceedings. Thus it saves the expenses costs
and conveniences of the Courts.
Examples: A is owner of a house-site. He wants to construct a
building He got the permission from the Municipality. A started
construction. Meanwhile, B the neighbourer claimed some of
the land of A and objected the construction, on the pretext of
some bias, immediately on the day of threatening itself. A filed
a caveat against B in the competent civil court praying the
Court to give him a notice before passing any interim order or
relief in case if B files any application before the Court, so that
he could give the answer to the claim of B.

PURPOSE A caveat may be lodged with a view to opposing

an application and not for the purpose of supporting an
application that has been filed or is expected to be filed by a
party in a suit or proceeding. In fact, caveat is a shield by
using which Person can prevent ex-parte order
Form:
No form is prescribed for the caveat. The caveator may file a
caveat in the form an application or petition before the court
submitting the cause of action giving the name and description
of the opponent. The copy of the application shall be sent to
the opponent party in advance by Registered post
Acknowledgement due, before filing it in the court.

WHO MAY LODGE CAVEAT?

Any person claiming right to be appear before court on hearing
of an application, when such application is expected to be
made/has been made is suit/proceedings /instituted/expected
to be instituted in court, may lodge a caveat in that respect.

Right of the Caveator:

A caveat protects the interests of caveator. The court must
give a notice to the caveator or to his advocates. If the
opponent party files proceedings/application for the interim
order. The court shall not give any ex parte interim order to the
opponent party without hearing the caveator.

LAND MARK JUDGEMENTS

Siddalingappa G.C. v. G.C. Veerana 1981(2) KLJ 323, If a
party has a right to file the caveat and order is passed without
hearing him, then such an order passed becomes bad at law
and thus is unenforceable.

Reserve Bank of India Employees Association v. RBI

1966 SCR (1) 25 without serving them a notice and without
hearing them. The ex parte interim order was held to be bad by
the Supreme Court
St of Karnataka v. Nil Employees' Asso. v. RBI (1995)
When there is uncertainty as to who is likely to file app., court
may allow caveat without naming applicant & serving notice.
(1981) court must notify caveator when any order is passed but
in case interim order is passed without notifying, then such
order is not without jurisdiction
VACVATING AND WITHDRAWL OF CAVEAT
Vacating Caveat Petition is not clear, so once it will be
registered then it will be in force for a period 90 days.
Withdrawal of Caveat Petition is also in same position.
Important Points:
Caveat can be filed only to oppose the application and not to
support.
Notice upon the caveator filing the date of hearing of the
application is a must. It is a mandatory under the Section 148-A
Section 148-A applies only to trial courts, but not appellate
courts
In the execution of the decree 21, Orders 22 and 37 enact for
the issue of a notice to the judgments debtor, under some
given circumstances. This gives the meaning that in cases not
covered by such provisions, notice of execution is not
necessary. Therefore, the judgment debtor is not entitled to a
notice of an execution of a decree at the initial stage by lodging
a caveat anticipating such an execution.
In Reserve Bank of India Employees Association Vs RBI
the plaintiffs filed a caveat before the court. The court before
expiry of 90 days, issued an interim ex parte order against the
plaintiffs without serving them a notice and without hearing

them. The ex parte interim order was held to be bad by the

Supreme Court.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS
1. Section 148A, it does not give a right to the party to file a
caveat in all the execution cases.
2. As per sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of the code the Court
is bound to serve a notice of the application, on caveator,
before passing an interim order thereof. No procedure provided
as in sub section (2).
3. As per sub section (2) notice shall be served but no stage is
mention such as prior to filing the caveat or at the time of filing
in the code.
4. If order has been passed without notice to the caveator it
would be only unenforceable.
5. Vacating Caveat Petition is not clear
6. If the judgment-debtor is able to show that he has got a right
to appear before the Court, then only he/she can lodge caveat.
7. No form is prescribed for the caveat CPC
8. As section 148A provides a substantive right to lodge the
caveat.
9. Sub-section (2) of Section 148-A provides procedure to
access that right should not be taken away by non compliance
of such provision.

CONCLUSION
No doubt the said parameters by interpretative process can be
stretched in order to effectively carry out the legislative intent
but while doing so, the essential contents of the statutory
provisions and its very workability cannot be put to a stake
thereby nullifying the right of the applicant to the proceedings

and virtually creating an impossibility for the Courts to comply

with the legislative mandate contained under sub-section (3) of
Section 148-A of the Code.