JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SEEDLING SCHOOL OF LAW & GOVERNANCE

A PROJECT OF DRAFTING PLEADING & CONVEYANCE

TOPIC: “CAVEAT UNDER SECTION 148A OF CPC.”

SUBMITTED TO : SUBMITTED BY:

MR.Sheikh Inam-Ul Mansoor MANSI MATTA

ASST. PROF. - LAW B.A,LL.B (HONS.)

S.S.L.G VIII SEMESTER

(2016-2021)

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the content of this project entitles “- “Caveat under section 148 A of
CPC” by Mansi Matta is the bona fide work of him submitted to Jaipur National University.
The bona fide research work was carried out by him under the supervision in the academic year
2020-21. On the basis of the declaration made by him I recommend this project report for
evaluation.

Certified By-

Mr. Sheikh Inam-Ul Mansoor

2
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned hereby declare that project report entitled “Caveat under sec. 148Aof CPC”
written and submitted by me to Jaipur National University under guidance of Asst. Prof. Mr.
Sheikh Inam-Ul Mansoor, is my original work and information are collected from various
sources all by myself.

Place- JNU, Jaipur Mansi Matta

Date- 28 March, 2020 VIII SEMESTER ( B.A.LL.B HONS.)

SSLG, JNU

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project. All that I have done is only due to such supervision and assistance and I would not forget
to thank them. I respect and thank Mr.Sheik Inam ul Mansoor, for providing me an opportunity
to do the project work in Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance and giving us all support and
guidance which made me complete the project duly. I am extremely thankful to him for
providing such a nice support and guidance, although he had busy schedule managing the
corporate affairs. I owe my deep gratitude to our project guide Mr. Sheikh Inam ul Mansoor ,
who took keen interest on our project work and guided us all along, till the completion of our
project work by providing all the necessary information for developing a good system.

I heartily thank our internal project guide Mr. Sheikh Inam ul Mansoor, [ASST. PROF. -
LAW], [S.S.L.G] for her/his guidance and suggestions during this project work. I am thankful to
and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and guidance from all Teaching
staffs which helped us in successfully completing our project work. Also, I would like to extend
our sincere esteems to all staff in laboratory for their timely support.

MANSI MATTA

B.A, LL.B ( HONS.) VIII SEMESTER

S.S.L.G

(2016- 2021)

4
 ABBREVIATIONS

Ltd. Limited

Sec. Section

Ed. Edition

Pg. no. Page Number

V. Versus

CPC Code of Civil Procedure

r/w Read With

5
 LIST OF CASES

 Nirmal Chand v. Girindra Narayan, AIR 1978 Cal 492.

 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.

 Santhosh v. Jagat Ram and Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 251.

6
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE NO

1. CERTIFICATE………………………………………………………...………..2

2. DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………3

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………..4

4. List Of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………….5

5. List of cases……………………………………………………………………...6

6. Chapter I- Introduction ………….….……………………...............................7-8

7. Chapter II Object and Scope ……………………………………………………..9

8. Chapter III Caveat in Indian Courts………………………………………………10-11

9. Chapter IV Case Laws…………………………………………………………….12-15

10. Chapter V- Conclusion and Suggestions…………………………………………16

11. BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………… 17

7
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION OF CAVEAT UNDER SECTION 148 A OF CPC

A Caveat could be a Latin expression which proposes 'let somebody be careful' begun inside the
mid-sixteenth century. In law, it ought to be comprehended as a notification, especially in
probate, that bound moves probably won't be made while not advising the one that gave the
notification. it ought to just be comprehended as a notice. inside the Civil Procedure Code of
1908 (hereinafter, the Code) it totally was embedded beneath area 148A by the suggestions of
the Law Commission of India's 54th Report and was embedded by the CPC (Amendment) Act
104 of 1976.

The Section: The Section talks in short concerning the proviso request. An admonition request
could be a deterrent live that is attempted by people ordinarily once they zone unit having a
terribly strong worry that some case goes to be documented inside the Court identifying with
their enthusiasm for any way. The word 'Admonition' isn't laid out inside the Code. In any case,
inside the case conformal Chand v. Processor Narayan 1 the Court had sketched out the word
Caveat, whereby it same, A Caveat could be an alert or cautioning given by somebody to the
Court to not make any move or award alleviation to the contrary angle while not pulling out to
the proviso or and keeping in mind that not bearing possibility of hearing him..

There are five 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.

1
AIR 1978 Cal 492

8
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,

 A copy of the application made by him.

 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.

9
 CHAPTER II

Object and Scope of the Section

The object of this area is to shield the enthusiasm of the Caveat or, United Nations organization
is set up to confront the suit or procedures that is anticipated to be founded by his adversary,
bearing an opportunity to be distinguished, before partner ex parte request is made. Likewise, to
keep away from assortment of procedures, in this manner on spare the costs and comforts of the
Courts.

The Scope of the area was organized down in changed cases. inside the instance of customary
Chand the Court hosted previously mentioned that associatey get-together experiencing an
interval request will record a Caveat appeal. Additionally, inside the instance of Kati Avail
jacket pilot v. Manila Paadikayil Karees Uma,2 the court opined that an individual United
Nations organization could be an all out strange to a proceeding can't hold up a proviso

2
AIR 1991 Ker 411.

10
 CHAPTER III

CAVEAT IN INDIAN COURTS

Caveat application in the Indian court implies that you are mentioning any court that if in the
event that a predetermined individual or association records a case in the court where you are
having some substantial enthusiasm than no organization ought to be passed by that Humble
court without giving you a notification about that case being documented andalso without
listening your side in that issue.

Admonition request is a careful step which is embraced by individuals as a rule when they are
having extremely solid worry that some case will be recorded in the court with respect to their
enthusiasm for any way.

The proviso request stays in power just for 90 days and if during that span no case gets
documented from the contrary side than you need to again record a crisp admonition appeal as
new in the court.You need to obviously indicate the name of the contrary party- - whom you
catch to document a body of evidence against you.

Detailed description

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.

LEGISLATION : The Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure 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.

11
(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 caveat or) 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 caveat or.

(4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the
caveat or at the aviator’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 subsection (1) has been made before the expiry of the said period.

12
 CHAPTER IV

CASE LAWS UNDER THIS SECTION

A Reserve Bank of India Employees association & Anr. V. The Reserve Bank of India and
Ors.3:

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 RBI,
Hyderabad.

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,

 The tem “notice of application” mentioned in clause(3) is not defined under the cod

3
AIR 1981 AP 246.

13
  However, it cannot relate to anything except the date of hearing, which is well
established by a simple reading of the section.
 The failure is a failure with respect to jurisdiction or merely its procedure?
 If jurisdictional failure, the order is null and void.
 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.4

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

4
(2010) 3 SCC 251.

14
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 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.

Opinion of the court: “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.”5

“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 appealent sealed by getting her statement recorded.6.

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.

5
Para 10 page 5.
6
Parar 10 page 5.

15
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Conclusion:

The Court has previously mentioned that a proceeding beneath article 226 of the Constitution of
India, doesn't engage a Caveat appeal. It conjointly applies for execution procedures and
procedures underneath the Criminal Procedure Code.there's little inquiry that the previously
mentioned parameters might be extended by recommends that of a basic strategy, in any case,
the horribly need of the accessibility can not be set on stake by the Court on account of the
inconveniences of the Court. The area should be followed strictly by the Courts. it's hence clear
that underneath the chromium.PC.in a criminal case at any phase of request, preliminary or
appeal, no such explicit arrangement of documenting a proviso, as controlled by segment 148-An
of the Code of Civil Procedure exists.

There are the same arrangements underneath the Code of Criminal Procedure beneath that an
individual gathering/offended party/witness will record an admonition to restrict the proceeding
started at the offer of the respondent

Suggestions:

 In common procedures the admonition is governed by Section 148A C.P.C. In legitimate

instrument locale as to such an extent as feasible C.P.C. is shaped relevant. so Section
148A C.P.C. has been made relevant.
 In read of the very certainty that the Code of Criminal Procedure, substantive law
administering the criminal system, makes no arrangement for proviso, the best possible of
the spirit to hold up an admonition is with none lawful approval.
 There having no lawful authorization behind the admonition stopped by the spirit no
results follow. Subsequently, no structure might be passed to review the sets of
confirmation and keep. The remain of the spirit is so discredited.

16
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Referred:

 C.K Takwani , Civil Procedure with Limitation Act ,1963, (8th, edition, Eastern Book
Company, 2017) .

 M.P Jain, The Code of Civil Procedure (4nd edition ,Lexix Nexix, 2016) .

Websites Referred:

 http://www.legalservicesindia.com

 https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/caveat

 www.lawyersclubindia.com

 https://civillawyersindia.wordpress.com

 www.shareyouressays.com

 https://www.quora.com/

 https://indiankanoon.org

17