MOIDEEN Vs. KADEESA UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree holder is the revision petitioner. The suit is for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's share. A preliminary decree was passed in the case. During the pendency of the application for passing of a final decree, respondents herein filed an application for impleading them as additional parties contending that their predecessors had an oral lease in respect of the suit property and that it devolved on them. That application for impleading them was dismissed by the Trial Court holding them as unnecessary parties to the suit. Thereafter a final decree was also passed.

(2.) AFTER the final decree was passed, the respondents filed a caveat under S.148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they also may be given notice before any order is passed while executing the decree on an application made by the decree holder. Under the impugned order dt. 10-10-1990 the lower court lodged the caveat. The revision is by the decree holder against the above order lodging the caveat filed by the respondents.

(3.) THE question to be decided is as to whether in such circumstances the respondents are entitled to lodge a caveat. S.148-A(1) which is relevant for the purpose of this case is to the following effect: