STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is posted before me on the objections raised by the office that the caveat filed by the State Government cannot be registered as the name of the respondent has not been shown and also the requirements of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has not been complied.

(2.) SRI D'sa, learned Government Advocate submitted that the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148a of the Code is required to be complied with, wherever, it is possible to identify the person, who is likely to institute a proceedings against a person; and who is likely to make an application in such proceedings; and whenever it is not possible to identify such a person, the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148a of the Code can be dispensed with as it is impossible of compliance. He pointed out that the object of S. 148a of the Code is to give any person who claims right to appear before the Court in respect of the proceedings instituted against him and contest the claim of the opposite party and that being the object, if the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148a of the Code, which provides for service of caveat petition on the person who is likely to institute proceedings, is read as mandatory and the compliance of the said provision is held compulsory, it would result in serious injustice to the parties and it would also take away the right given to a person under sub-sec. (1) of S. 148a of the Code to lodge a caveat. He further pointed out that in large number of proceedings instituted against the State, especially when the proceedings are instituted as public interest litigations, or where the statutory provisions of an enactment are challenged, it is not possible to find out with certainty which member of the public is likely to institute proceedings before the Court and in that situation, if compliance of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148a of the Code is held to be mandatory, it would defeat the very object and purpose of providing a right to lodge a caveat. It is his further submission that in the caveat petition filed by the State, a prayer was made to dispense with the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148a of he Code which provides for service of notice as provided under the said sub-section. He further submitted that what is the substance of the matter is that the caveator should specify the subject matter of dispute; and with reference to what subject matter, the relief is sought to be claimed against the caveator; and if that is done, there should not be any difficulty for the office of the Court to register the caveat petition even if the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of S. 148a of the Code is not complied with.

(3.) SINCE the matter is of some importance, I have heard the other members of the Bar, who are present in the Court. Sri V. S. Sadashivan and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Advocates, made their submissions and supported the submission of Sri D'sa.