RAPHIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the case was taken, this was brought to the notice of the Court that the caveat was reported by the Stamp Reporter when the writ petition was presented for reporting before him, but subsequently he scored out the same.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that caveat was wrongly reported by the Stamp Reporter, but on his objection to the effect that caveat remains effective for only 90 days, the report was scored out and another report to the effect that no caveat has been filed was made by the Stamp Reporter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Section 148A(5) of the C.P.C. in support of his contention.

(3.) Learned Counsel for caveator, in reply, urged that provisions of C.P.C. will not be applicable with regard to lodging caveat in writ petitions. The only provision under which caveat could be lodged in writ petitions is Rule 5 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. He further urged that caveat was rightly reported by the Stamp Reporter, but the report was wrongly and illegally scored out by Stamp Reporter at the instance of petitioner's counsel. He also urged that petitioner is entitled to be heard in opposition at the initial stage.