PHERU SINGH Vs. NAYADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PHERU Singh, the defendant-appellant, has filed the present second appeal in which a caveat has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. At the time of the admission-hearing of the appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the caveat application. Accordingly learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

(2.) THE first objection taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no caveat lies in second appeals and the caveator has got no right of hearing at the admission stage as the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in such a case. This objection has been stoutly refuted to by the learned counsel for the caveator. Sri Tarun Agrawal, Advocate, who appears as counsel for the caveator, submits that the aforesaid objection raised by the appellant has got no force. In support of his submission, he relies on the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE said section reads as follows :-

(3.) IN the case of Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy, AIR 1978 Cal. 492 a Division Bench of that Court has also summarised the object of introduction of the provision for lodging a caveat. According to the said authority the object seems to be to safeguard the interest of a person against an order that may be passed on an application filed or expected to be filed by a party in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted. The other object, as stated in the aforesaid decision, is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This is so because a person lodging a caveat may not be a necessary party to such an application but he may be affected by an order that may be passed on such application and in that event he has to take resort to legal proceedings for the purpose of getting rid of that order.