Dr. R. R. Misra, J. - (1.) PHERU Singh, the defendant-appellant, has filed the present second appeal in which a caveat has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. At the time of the admission-hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the caveat application. Accordingly learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
(2.) THE first objection taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no caveat lies in second appeals and the caveator has got no right of hearing at the admission stage as the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in such a case. This objection has been stoutly refuted to by the learned counsel for the caveator. Sri Tarun Agrawal, Advocate, who appears as counsel for the caveator, submits that the aforesaid objection raised by the appellant has got no force. In support of his submission, he relies on the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE said section reads as follows :- " 148-A. Right to lodge a caveat- (1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding 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. (emphasis supplied). (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 caveator) 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 subsection (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 caveator. (4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the caveator, at the caveator'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. A scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions reveals that sub-section (1) of section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure sets out the conditions under which a caveat may be lodged by any person. The right to lodge the caveat belongs not only to a party to the suit or proceeding but to " any person " who claims a right to appear before the Court at the time of the hearing of the application in a suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted in a Court. As regards the conditions, such caveat is to be lodged in respect of application " in a suit or proceeding " and by a party who has a right to appear (emphasis supplied) before the Court on the hearing of such application. Under sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section of the Code, if such a caveat has been lodged, such caveator has to serve a notice of the caveat on the person making the application under sub-section (1) of the said section. Under sub-section (3) when an application is filed in any suit or proceeding, it is obligatory on the Court to serve a notice of the application on the caveator. After service, the caveator is to be furnished with a copy of the application (accompanied by copies of the documents filed in support of the application) made by the party concerned at the expense of the caveator. The term " caveat " is a word which conveys the idea of a caution notice given to the Court not to issue any grant or take any step without notice being given to the party lodging the caveat. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure, therefore, taken against the grant of an order by the Court effecting the rights of a party. This system of lodging a caveat has its origin in the matters of grant of probate or letters of administration wherein this precautionary measure was necessary affecting the rights of the person interested in the estate of the deceased. Such a provision for lodging a caveat in testamentary proceeding is contained in Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act as well as under Rule 35 of Chapter XXX of the Rules of Court, 1952 which are made by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in that behalf.
(3.) IN the case of Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy, AIR 1978 Cal. 492 a Division Bench of that Court has also summarised the object of introduction of the provision for lodging a caveat. According to the said authority the object seems to be to safeguard the interest of a person against an order that may be passed on an application filed or expected to be filed by a party in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted. The other object, as stated in the aforesaid decision, is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This is so because a person lodging a caveat may not be a necessary party to such an application but he may be affected by an order that may be passed on such application and in that event he has to take resort to legal proceedings for the purpose of getting rid of that order. Sri Tarun Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the caveator, has in the course of his arguments heavily relied upon the decision in the case of C. Seethaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 A. P. 443 in support of his submission that having regard to the intention embodied in the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the caveator respondent has got a tight to be heard before any orders are passed and no orders are to be passed by the Court ex-parte. The point that arose for consideration in the case of C. Seethaiah (Supra) was that the caveator was not supplied with copies of the application and documents filed by the petitioner. The Court held that when a caveat is lodged it becomes not only the duty of the Court but also of the applicant and his counsel to bring to the notice of the Court that caveat has been lodged and that the matter may not be heard ex-parte. Such an obligation is implied having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (3) and (4) thereof and also the overall intendment of the provision. This decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in turn takes note of the three other decisions reported in Reserve Bank of India Employees Association v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1981 A. P. 246, G. C. Siddalingappa v. G. C. Veeranna, AIR 1981 Karnataka 242 and Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Rao, AIR 1978 Cal. 492. I, therefore, find that this decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the aforesaid other three decisions do not deal with the controversy raised before me and, therefore, the said authority is not relevant to decide the controversy involved before me in the present case.;