Search this article on Google: Understanding the Right to Lodge a Caveat under Section 148a of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Title: Understanding the Right to Lodge a Caveat under Section 148a of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
One of the most important provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is Section 148A, which focuses on the lodging of a caveat. The concept of caveat is an integral part of civil litigation in India, impacting the manner in which parties respond to litigation. In this article, our legal experts from SimranLaw dissect this potentially complex legal provision, aiming to provide readers with insights drawn from years of practical experience.
The Interpretation of Section 148A:
Before we delve further into the application of caveats, it is important to first clarify what a caveat is. Derived from the Latin term ‘caveat’, meaning ‘let him beware’, a caveat in legal terms is essentially a cautionary note that is lodged by a person, signaling their interest in a particular matter and requiring that no order should be passed without that person being heard.
Section 148A of CPC was introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 1st February 1977. The primary objective of this section is to safeguard the interests of individuals against any unilateral orders passed by courts without hearing them.
Rights under Section 148A:
A person who may be affected by any order that is likely to be passed in a suit or proceedings has the right to lodge a caveat. The caveat, accordingly, remains in force for ninety days from the date it is lodged. Importantly, if an application has been filed and a caveat exists, the court cannot pass an interim order without serving notice to the caveator and hearing them.
Several cases have shed light on the application and interpretation of Section 148A. Notably:
1. In the case of Nirmala Devi Vs Panjab University, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that the caveator has an absolute right to be heard before any interim order is passed against them. However, it’s also the duty of the caveator to remain present, either in person or through a lawyer, at the time and place mentioned in the notice served by the court.
2. In Bijoy Singh Dudhoria Vs Sova Rani Dutta case, the Supreme Court held that in the eventuality of a caveat being lodged in a suit, no ad-interim ex-parte order should be passed by the court without hearing the caveator.
3. The case of Shimbu Singh Versus Sanjay Gandhi held that if a person has lodged a caveat under Section 148A, it does not automatically give them the right of audience if they are not a proper or necessary party to the proceedings.
The lodging of a caveat under Section 148A is a powerful tool that can significantly alter litigation dynamics. It is a reflection of the principle of natural justice as it prevents courts from passing any adverse order without hearing the party who may be affected by it. However, along with this right comes an important responsibility for the caveator to ensure they are present when required by the court. Understanding and exercising this right effectively can lead to more equitable outcomes in civil legal proceedings.