BHAGWATI PRASAD,J. - (1.) IN this revision petition, an application has been moved on behalf of respondent No. 4 wherein it has been alleged that he had filed a caveat and the petitioners had knowledge of it. Since the applicant having filed a caveat had the right of hearing before the matter was taken up for admission. The orders were passed without hearing the applicant. Therefore, the order of admission and stay passed by this Court on 21.10.1999 deserves to be re ailed.
(2.) THE case was taken up for arguments on the question whether a caveat is permissible in criminal matters. The arguments were heard on 2.12.1999 and the order was reserved. Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant urged that the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 makes a provision under Rule 159 that as and when a caveat is lodged, the Registrar will give notice of the lodging of the appeal and it would be required that appellant/ petitioner will furnish a copy of the appeal/petition or application to the caveator. The caveator is entitled to notice of the petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has urged that the procedure prescribed under Rule 159 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 having not been followed the order of admission and stay deserves to be recalled. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court delivered in the matter of Hari Ram v. Ratanlal wherein this Court has held that caveat having been filed in a writ petition, the respondent was entitled to notice. The notice having not been given the order deserves to be recalled.;