SUDHAKARAN Vs. THANKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the third defendant in a suit for partition, has filed an appeal before the District Court against the final decree passed in the suit. He also filed an interlocutory application for stay of execution of the final decree. Learned District Judge on admission of appeal granted an ex parte order of interim stay, but vacated the stay later, as per the impugned order, when the plaintiffs respondents entered appearance and opposed the application. The learned District Judge dismissed the application for stay mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the court that a caveat has been lodged by the plaintiffs respondents in the District Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has never received a notice from the caveators and that is the reason why be could not bring it to the notice of the court. Counsel also contended that failure of the party to inform the court of the caveat is no ground to dismiss the application, if it is otherwise allowable on merits. At any rate, the court before which the caveat was lodged failed to take note of it for no fault of the petitioner, according to the counsel.

(3.) S.148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the procedure regarding lodging of caveats. The said provision was inserted in the Code by Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976. It came into force on 1-5-1977. It is a new innovative measure in the direction of prevention of miscarriage of justice in hearing only side of a dispute. The ideal petition it is pass judicial orders after hearing both sides in a dispute. Bat the exigency of a situation may warrant passing of emergent orders to prevent serious consequences or to protect the subject matter or otherwise to safeguard the interest of justice. In such emergency, court may find it inexpedient to wait for appearance of the opposite party after service of notice on him. So interim orders are passed in such circumstances. Caveat proceedings are intended to minimise hardships to such opposite party who could give advance intimation to court that be would be available for being heard before passing any interim order against him. Provision for lodging caveats thus helps in the administration of justice in a great measure. Such provision, therefore, should not be allowed to get scuttled or stultified