Karnataka HC: Whether Stay order by Revenue Appellate court is bad if it has passed stay order without hearing caveater?

Thus, a reading of Section 148-A of the C.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that it applies only to a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court. Section 148-A create a sustentative right in the party. It is not a matter of procedure only. It gives a substantive right in relation to the proceedings that are instituted, or that may bo instituted in a Court. The word "Court" has been defined in Section 2(9a) of the Land Reforms Act as "Court means the Court of Munsiff within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situate." The Appellate Authority constituted under the Amendment Act 1986 is not a Court of original jurisdiction or a Court of Appeal within the meaning of the C.P.C. The Appellate Authority has been created by the Land Reforms Act under Section 116A. Therefore, it becomes clear that the Appellate Authority does not amount to a Court within the meaning of the definition of the Court given by the Land Reforms Act or within the meaning of the word 'Court' as defined by the C.P.C. Therefore, Section 148-A of the C.P.C. does not apply to the proceedings instituted or to be instituted before the Appellate Authority. {Para 2}

Therefore, the Appellate Authority, by virtue of Section 107 C.P.C. read with Section 113 of the Land Reforms Act, cannot entertain a caveat as defined by Section 148-A of the C.P.C. Section 148-A doesn't give a right to the Court to receive the caveat, but it gives a right to the party to file a caveat. There is nothing in the Land Reforms Act, even as amended by Act No. 19/86 to show that the party has got a right to file caveat. This is a special right given to the party by the C.P.C. in relation to the proceedings instituted or to be instituted in a Court. This is an exceptional right given to the party in relation to the proceedings filed or to be filed in a Court. Such an exceptional right given to a party by Section 148-A of the C.P.C. in relation to suits or appeals or proceedings instituted or to be instituted in a Court, is not available to a litigant in respect of the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act.

6. As already stated above, Sub-section (3) speaks about the State Government making Rules for conferment of such other powers on the Appellate Authority as may be considered necessary or to regulate the practice and procedure of the Appellate Authority and the conduct of its business. It does not contemplate anything like giving an additional right to the litigant file a caveat. As already indicated above, it is only a special right given to the litigant to file a caveat. Such a right does not amount to conferment of the powers on the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the said argument also stands rejected. Under these circumstances, his argument that the stay order is bad as it has been passed by the Appellate Authority without hearing him even though he had filed a caveat, stands rejected.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

C.R.P. No. 3088 of 1986

Decided On: 25.08.1986

Panchakshari Vs. Chairman, Land Tribunal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.A. Kulkarni, J.

Citation: MANU/KA/0318/1986.

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to file caveat in proceeding for execution of decree?

Under S. 148A(1) therefore. Any person who claims a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of an application can file a caveat under that section in anticipation of such application being made. The result of filing such a caveat is that once such a caveat is filed a notice of any application such a suit or proceeding must be given to the caveator. The filing of a caveat prevents separate orders being made in proceedings where the caveator has ordinaries as right to be heard. The provisions of Section 148A are therefore attracted in cases of such proceedings where the caveator is entitled to be heard in the ordinary course. Section 148A may also apply to those proceedings where the court in its discretion. Hears the party who has filed the caveat. Before passing orders. Application for execution under O. 21. R. 43 or R. 54 are not proceedings where the judgment-debtor has a right to be heard. In fact there is no provision in law for issue of a notice to the judgment-debtor in applications for execution except in specific cases enumerated in O. 21. R. 22 and O.21. R. 37. Since the judgment-debtor is not a party who has a right to be heard or is ordinarily heard in applications under O. 21, R. 43 or O.21, R.54. the provisions of S. 148A are not attracted to such execution applications. The defendants are therefore not entitled to file a caveat in such an application for execution of a decree passed against them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Execution Appln. No. 139 of 1983 in Suit no. 1832 of 1979

Decided On: 07.10.1983

Nav Digvijaya Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Sadhana Builders and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.V. Manohar, J.

Citation: AIR 1984 Bombay 114

Print Page

Whether caveat as per S148-A of CPC can be filed in criminal matter?

 It is therefore evident that under the Cr.PC.in a criminal case at any stage of inquiry, trial or appeal, no such specific provision of filing a caveat, as governed by section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure exists. There are no other provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a private party / complainant / informant can file a caveat to oppose the proceeding initiated at the behest of the accused. Learned Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 11th May 2001 passed in WPC No. 1703/2001 in the case of Deepak Khosla vs. Union of India & others, had also the occasion to consider, whether a caveat application is maintainable in a criminal matter to oppose the prayer of the accused person seeking an interim order from the Court? Learned Court after considering the provisions of the CPC and Cr.PC., as has been noticed herein above as well, came to an authoritative conclusion that there is no legal sanction for filing a caveat by the applicant concerned to oppose the prayer of the accused in a criminal matter. Learned Division Bench considered the judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sahab Ram & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others [2000 (2) WLN 554] which also had taken the same view.

14. From the aforesaid discussions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no scope for filing a caveat as required under section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in a criminal proceeding. The first question of law is answered accordingly.

Jharkhand High Court

Santu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2014

Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)JOURNAL65

Print Page