Caveat under section 148A code of civil procedure 1908

1. Shakuntla Sangam
Assistant Professor
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
Lucknow

2. CAVEAT
Caveat means a caution or
warning to the court not to
issue any grant without
giving opportunity to the
person lodging the caveat

3. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Section
148
A
has
been
introduced in the present code by
the
code
of
procedure(Amendment)
1976.
Civil
Act,

4. DEFINITION OF CAVEAT
Not defined in CPC
 In the case of Nirmal Chand v Girindra
Narayan, AIR 1978 Cal 492 as given by
the Hon’ble Court
“A caveat is a 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 opportunity of hearing
him”.

5. OBJECT
 To safe guard the interest of caveator, who
is ready to face the suit or proceedings
which is expected to be instituted by his
opponent affording opportunity to hear before
an ex parte order is made.
 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings . Thus
it saves
the expenses costs and conveniences of the

6. 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.

7. WHO MAY LODGE?
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.

8. 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

9. 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)

10. APPLICABILITY
In testamentary proceedings
Indian succession Act 1925 (section 284 )
Suits and other proceedings( appeal,
revision, execution)
Code of civil Procedure 1908 (section 148 A)
Writ petition Industrial court or Labour
court
(Ram Chandra v. State of Up., AIR 1966 SC
188)

11. TIME LIMIT
The caveat petition remains in force
only for 90 days and if during that
duration no case gets filed from the
opposite side then caveator has to
again file a fresh caveat petition as
new in the court.

12. WHERE CAVEAT DOES NOT LIE?
Proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. (Harikishnan v. Jacob,
AIR 2005 Ker 220)
Execution proceedings. Jayarama v. Ajjanna
on 26 September, 1986(ILR 1986 KAR 3583)
Proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code
.(Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia v. High Court on 22
July, 2011)

13. WHEN CAVEAT IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE
Lodged with a view to supporting
an application that has been filed
or is expected to be filed by a
party in a suit or proceeding.
The caveat is filed in collusion.

14. 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

15. LAND MARK JUDGEMENTS
(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.

16. 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!

17. FORMATE
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.

18. IMPORTANT POINTS
Caveat can be filed only to oppose the application
and not to support.
Notice upon the caveator for the date of hearing of
the application is a must. It is a mandatory under the
Section 148-A
In the execution of the decree, Orders 21 Rule 22&
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.

19. 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).

20. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS
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

21. POINTS FOR
CONSIDERATIONS
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

22. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS
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.

23. 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.

24. THANK YOU!