π3π₯2β€1
π
β GNCTD v UOI 2018
β 69th amendment
β Article 239AA
β GNCTD Amendment Act 2021 and 2023
@CurrentLegalGK
Unique status to Delhi - Federalismβ GNCTD v UOI 2018
β 69th amendment
β Article 239AA
β GNCTD Amendment Act 2021 and 2023
@CurrentLegalGK
β€3
πΌ
β Kesavanand bharti
β I.R. Coelho v state of tamil nadu
β Ram jewaya kapoor v punjab
β P kannadasan v state of tamil nadu
β Golak nath v state of punjab
β Kartar singh v state of punjab
#montesquieu
@CurrentLegalGK
Landmark cases on Separation of Powers β Kesavanand bharti
β I.R. Coelho v state of tamil nadu
β Ram jewaya kapoor v punjab
β P kannadasan v state of tamil nadu
β Golak nath v state of punjab
β Kartar singh v state of punjab
#montesquieu
@CurrentLegalGK
β€1π₯1π1
Filing Of Caveat Under Section 148a Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/filing-of-caveat-under-section-148a-of-civil-procedure-code-242309
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/filing-of-caveat-under-section-148a-of-civil-procedure-code-242309
www.livelaw.in
Filing Of Caveat Under Section 148a Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
There are prevailing misconceptions among young lawyers and even among the many experienced practitioners pertaining to Caveat. The existing misconception regarding Caveat is the thinking that...
π2
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Filing Of Caveat Under Section 148a Of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 https://www.livelaw.in/articles/filing-of-caveat-under-section-148a-of-civil-procedure-code-242309
π
β‘ Moideen v. Kadeesa Umma and Anr.
In this case, the suit was filed before the Kerala High Court pertaining to the partition and separate possession of the plaintiffβs share. After the passing of the final decree, the respondent filed a caveat under Β§ 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they also may be given notice before any order is passed. The Court emphasized that if any application is expected to be made in a suit or proceeding or about to be instituted, any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such an application alone may lodge a caveat.
β‘C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
In this case, the appellant petitioner did not serve the copies of the petition on the caveator and he was not at all heard before the interim order of suspension was granted. The ex parte order of suspension deserves to be set aside on this ground. The fact remains that the caveator had no notice of the posting and hearing of the writ petition and miscellaneous petition and had no opportunity to oppose the petitionerβs request for suspension of the impugned order.
The Court highlighted that whenever a caveat is lodged as laid down under sub-sec (1) of sec 148 A sub-sec. (2) makes it obligatory upon the caveator to 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.
β‘ G.C Siddalingappa v. G.C Veeranna
In this case, the Karnataka High Court highlighted that 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 learned judge further held 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.
β‘ Employees Association v. RBI
In this case, the Court held that by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 148 A applicant is duty-bound to furnish a copy of the application made by him along with copies of all the documents which he referred to during the course of the proceeding to the caveator at the caveatorβs expenses.
β‘ State of Karnataka v. NIL
Court pronounced that under Sub-section (2) of section 148 A once a party has admitted as a caveator then he is duty bound to serve a notice of the lodged caveat by registered post on the person or persons by whom an application for an interim order or is expected to be moved against the caveator. However, it is not mandatory. The Court went on to pronounce that where no notice could be served on account of the uncertainty of the person likely to institute a suit, appeal, or other proceedings, the Court may, at its discretion, dispense with the serve of notice of a caveat and permit a party to lodge a caveat without naming the respondent party.
β‘ Pashupati Nath v. Registrar, Coop. Societies
In this case, the Court discussed in length the filing of a caveat. The Court highlighted that a caveat may be lodged after a decree or judgment is pronounced or order is passed. However, in exceptional cases, a caveat may be filed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment or passing of the decree/order as the case may be. Moreover, the Court supplied an emphasis that the provisions of the said section can only be attracted where the caveator is entitled to be heard before any order is made on the application filed or expected to be filed.
Important Case Laws on Caveatβ‘ Moideen v. Kadeesa Umma and Anr.
In this case, the suit was filed before the Kerala High Court pertaining to the partition and separate possession of the plaintiffβs share. After the passing of the final decree, the respondent filed a caveat under Β§ 148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they also may be given notice before any order is passed. The Court emphasized that if any application is expected to be made in a suit or proceeding or about to be instituted, any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of such an application alone may lodge a caveat.
β‘C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh
In this case, the appellant petitioner did not serve the copies of the petition on the caveator and he was not at all heard before the interim order of suspension was granted. The ex parte order of suspension deserves to be set aside on this ground. The fact remains that the caveator had no notice of the posting and hearing of the writ petition and miscellaneous petition and had no opportunity to oppose the petitionerβs request for suspension of the impugned order.
The Court highlighted that whenever a caveat is lodged as laid down under sub-sec (1) of sec 148 A sub-sec. (2) makes it obligatory upon the caveator to 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.
β‘ G.C Siddalingappa v. G.C Veeranna
In this case, the Karnataka High Court highlighted that 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 learned judge further held 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.
β‘ Employees Association v. RBI
In this case, the Court held that by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 148 A applicant is duty-bound to furnish a copy of the application made by him along with copies of all the documents which he referred to during the course of the proceeding to the caveator at the caveatorβs expenses.
β‘ State of Karnataka v. NIL
Court pronounced that under Sub-section (2) of section 148 A once a party has admitted as a caveator then he is duty bound to serve a notice of the lodged caveat by registered post on the person or persons by whom an application for an interim order or is expected to be moved against the caveator. However, it is not mandatory. The Court went on to pronounce that where no notice could be served on account of the uncertainty of the person likely to institute a suit, appeal, or other proceedings, the Court may, at its discretion, dispense with the serve of notice of a caveat and permit a party to lodge a caveat without naming the respondent party.
β‘ Pashupati Nath v. Registrar, Coop. Societies
In this case, the Court discussed in length the filing of a caveat. The Court highlighted that a caveat may be lodged after a decree or judgment is pronounced or order is passed. However, in exceptional cases, a caveat may be filed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment or passing of the decree/order as the case may be. Moreover, the Court supplied an emphasis that the provisions of the said section can only be attracted where the caveator is entitled to be heard before any order is made on the application filed or expected to be filed.
π₯4π3