The petitioner/6th respondent/plaintiff has filed M.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2008 in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in C.R.P.(PD).No.4051 of 2008 praying to revoke the order of interim suspension passed in M.p.No.1 of 2008 and to revoke the order of deferring the proceedings of the trial Court in O.S.No.8178 of 2008 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The petitioner/6th respondent's case is that the 6th respondent and 5th respondent in the C.R.P.(PD).No.4051 of 2008 in utter violation of the order passed by this Court conducted the election in the absence of the District Revenue Officer, who was to be the election observer, as ordered by this Court and the first respondent/petitioner in the civil revision petition is the one and claims to have been elected as the Chairman through the illegal election conducted in violation of the order of this Court and considering the illegalities in the conduct of the election the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by an order dated 21.11.2008 has granted the ad-interim injunction restraining the first respondent/petitioner, who is the product of the illegal election, from functioning as Chairman of the Board of trustees of the Arulmighu Irukkangudi Mariamman Temple and that he has lodged a caveat on 24.11.2008 before this Court under Section 148 A of Civil Procedure Code and the same has been numbered as Caveat No.4891 of 2008 as early as on 25.11.2008 and that to the shock and surprise, on 04.12.2008, one of the hereditary trustee told him that an injunction order has been granted by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has been stayed by this Court and that he immediately contacted his counsel over phone and enquired as to whether any civil revision petition has been filed and any order of stay has been granted by this Court and his counsel replied stating that no such notice of any civil revision petition has been served on him and until any such notice is served, the civil revision petition itself will not be numbered and hence, no order could have been passed by this Court and thereafter, on 05.12.2008 his counsel contacted him over phone and informed him that copies of relevant papers regarding this civil revision petition has been served on him on 05.12.2008 and he further informed that the date of timing of the case has not been mentioned in the letter given by the counsel for the revision petitioner and that his counsel has informed that he will inform the date and time of the hearing of the case after verifying with the Registry.
3.The further stand of the petitioner is that his counsel contacted him and informed that without serving any notice on their counsel, without displaying the name of the counsel in the daily list, the civil revision petition No.4051 of 2008 and interim applications were also numbered and the same has also been entertained by the High Court as early as on 04.12.2008 itself and interim orders have been granted on the same day and on verification, it is found that the caveat has been taken note of by the Registry and to that effect the Registry has made endorsement in each and every interim application and as well as in the main civil revision petition, but the counsel for the revision petitioner instead of enclosing the acknowledgment card for the service of notice on the caveator, enclosed the postal receipt for sending the notice and has mislead the Registry and the Court suppressing the material fact that the statutory notice was not served on the counsel for the caveator and that the Registry has numbered the interim applications even without the endorsement of the counsel for the revision petitioner to the effect as to whether the notice has been served on the counsel for the caveator and on 04.12.2008 the petition to dispense with came in the cause list as 4th item and the name of the counsel for the caveator has not been displayed and the counsel for the revision petitioner has sought for a permission to bring the matter by lunch motion and obtained interim orders by 2.30 p.m. On 04.12.2008 itself and that the counsel for the revision petitioner has suppressed the material fact that the caveator was not served with the notice of the applications.
4.The contention of the petitioner is that orders passed by this Court in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008 is in violation of the requirements of sub-section 3 of Section 148 A of Civil Procedure Code and the same is void, since the same has been passed without jurisdiction and that the act of the revision petitioner in suppressing the material factum of lodgment of caveat, misleading the Court by enclosing the mere postal receipt instead of acknowledgment card etc., is not only an abuse of process of law but also a fraud committed on the face of the Court and that the election in which the revision petitioner claims to have succeeded has been conducted in utter violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9157 of 2008 and therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to any relief and therefore, prays for revoking the order dated 04.12.2008 passed by this Court in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008.
5.The plea of the first respondent/petitioner in the counter is that he personally went to the chamber of Mr.Poovalingam, Caveators counsel at 370, New additional law chambers, High Court, Chennai on 01.12.2008 in the afternoon and on 03.12.2008 in the morning, he could not find him and serve the papers and the persons in the chamber would not receive the papers and he also went to 475, New Law Chambers to seek the assistance of Mr.Lenin, counsel for plaintiff in both the suits and he refused to receive the papers as he has not filed the caveat and further he has not given any detail to contact Mr.Poowalingam and due to the urgency he has no other option then to send the necessary papers which have been included in the typed set of papers, affidavit and the civil revision petition through speed post with acknowledgment on 03.12.2008 and the same should have been received by the caveator on the next day and that the petition for dispensing with the impugned order has been listed on 04.12.2008 in the morning, while ordering the same, the senior counsel sought permission for moving a lunch motion as the HR & CE Department who was threatening to appoint a fit person and the matter has been taken up at 2.30 p.m. and that it has been represented that as the counsel for the caveator could not be served the papers has been sent the previous day by speed post, the postal receipt has also been filed into the Court and that a person who has abused the process of the Court and has wilfully obstructed the administration of justice cannot seek indulgence of this Court and he has resorted to re-litigation and that Mr.Shankar, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has also been informed at about 1.30 p.m. that the civil revision petition is coming up for admission at 2.30 p.m. and informed that he is only instructing the senior counsel in the earlier civil revision petition and that he has nothing to do with the present civil revision petition as on date and that the non printing of the caveators name was also not noticed and that he has no intention to suppress the caveat and to get orders behind the back of the plaintiff and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition Nos.5 and 6 of 2008.
6.Further, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that in view of the caveat they made every bona fide attempt to serve on the counsel for the caveator but unfortunately, they were not able to do so on 02.12.2008 and 03.12.2008 and due to the urgency they have sent all the necessary papers through speed post with acknowledgment on 03.12.2008 from the High Court post office in the bona fide belief that the caveator counsel shall receive the same on 04.12.2008 and that while the Senior Advocate was advancing arguments on 04.12.2008 it was brought to the notice of this Court about the caveat, the difficulty faced by us in serving him and the fact of sending the papers by speed post with acknowledgment and while this Court passing orders in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 this Court was pleased to permit the first respondent/ petitioner to serve the copies of the lower Court counsel and that the copy of the said orders were received by us on 05.12.2008, but on the next working day i.e. On 08.12.2008 the above application was served etc.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner/6th respondent submits that an affidavit filed by a party or a counsel will not over right the ingredients of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code and that as per Section 148-A(2) of Civil Procedure Code the caveator shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgment due, on the person by whom the application has been or, is expected to be made, under sub-section (1) and that the Court office has to put a note that the caveator has not been served and further as per sub-section (3) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator and that when the matter comes before Court it is the duty of the counsel to inform the Court that the caveator's name has not been printed and after a demur is raised in regard to the fact that caveator has not been served filing of an affidavit on the side of 1st respondent/ petitioner will not cure the illegality and the office of the Registry ought to have returned the applications before the hearing/numbering and therefore, prays for revoking the order passed by this Court in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008.
8.In regard to the contention that when a caveat is filed then it is a condition precedent for passing an interim order to serve a notice on the application on the caveator who is likely to be affected by the interim order, the learned counsel for the petitioner/6th respondent cites the decision in G.C.Siddalingappa V. Veeranna AIR 1981 Karnataka 242 wherein it is inter alia held that 'Section 148-A (3) of Civil Procedure Code is condition precedent for serving application on caveator before passing interim order etc.' He also relies on the decision C.Seethaiah V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 443 wherein it is held that 'also, when a caveat is lodged it becomes not only the duty of the Court but also of the petitioner and his counsel to bring to the notice of the Court that caveat has been lodged and the matter may not be heard ex parte etc.'
9.Added further, he also seeks in aid of the decision in Venkatesh V. State of Karnataka and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3561 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that 'notice must be served on the concerned respondent even though he might have appeared on caveat unless counsel on his behalf has waived service and that no acknowledgment to show that notice of writ petition had been served on the respondent and cause list showing name of Advocate for respondent-caveator, not sufficient notice.' He presses into service the decision in Nirmal Chandra Dutta V. Girindra Narayan Roy and others AIR 1978 Calcutta 492 at page 493 wherein it is inter alia observed as follows:
"... It was incumbent upon the Subordinate Judge to decide whether or not the notice of the order under S.3 of the said Act was served upon the petitioner. The Subordinate Judge could not proceed on the assumption that there had been service of such notice without making any investigation in that regard."
10.Continuing further, the learned counsel for the petitioner/6th respondent cites the decision in M.Krishnappa Chetty and another V. P.E.Chandrasekaran @ Chandran 1993 1 MLJ at page 18 it is observed as follows:
"The proper procedure to be adopted in all cases where caveat has been filed is for the plaintiff/petitioner to serve copies of the plaint and application on the caveator's counsel or the caveator before filing them in Court. He must inform the caveator or his counsel as the case may be, the date on which he will move the application before Court. He must also file acknowledgments of the receipt of copies obtained from the caveator's counsel or the caveator as the case may be, in Court along with the application. On receiving such papers the office of the Court shall, while fixing the date for the first hearing of the application prepare a note and bring it to the notice of the presiding officer concerned that caveat has been entered and the caveator's counsel or the caveator has been served with copies of plaint and the application. The presiding officer shall direct the office of the court to issue notice to the caveator's counsel or the caveator, as the case may be, specifying the date on which the matter will be heard in the first instance. The Court shall inform the petitioner's counsel also of the said date and on that date both sides shall be heard before any interim order is passed. This procedure shall strictly be followed by all the subordinate courts. There shall be no lapse in following this procedure."
11.He also cites the decision in K.Rajasekaran V. K.Sakunthala and 9 others 2008(5) CTC 319 at page 320 wherein this Court has held that 'the order of interim relief is not void. But when the fact situation which culminates in non-issuance of any notice as contemplated under Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court has to necessarily vacate the order and hear the Application on merit and pass necessary orders.'
12.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ petitioner submits that on 04.12.2008 this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in C.R.P.(PD).SR.No.99790 of 2008 has dispensed with the filing of the original impugned order dated 21.11.2008 in I.A.No.19924 of 2008 in O.S.No.8178 of 2008 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and after seeking permission from the Court, a lunch motion has been moved and a representation has been made to the Court that the counsel for the caveator cannot be served and that the papers have been sent on the previous day by speed post, the postal receipt has also been filed into Court and that the non-serving of the caveator does not affect the Courts right and power to pass appropriate orders in a given case and on facts the petitioner/6th respondent cannot have any objection in regard to the orders passed by this Court in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008 and that the Court has unfettered right to pass an order of interim nature and moreover, the trial Court has granted the interim relief of injunction in I.A.No.19924 of 2008 without application of mind and therefore, there is no need for this Court to revoke the order passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008.
13.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ petitioner contends that a caveat is only an intimation to a Judge or officer notifying that the opposite party be given an opportunity to be heard before any action is taken on the application or proceeding initiated by the other side and relies on the decision in Chandrajit and another V. Smt.Ganeshiya and others AIR 1987 Allahabad 360 at page 361 wherein it is held as follows:
"Order XLI, R.11 of the C.P.C. does not in terms grant a right of hearing at the admission stage to a party as against whom an appeal has been filed. But, the powers of the Court to hear the opposite party or respondent, where ends of justice require, are unlimited. Normally, better justice is likely to be done if the two sides are heard. At the stage where the caveat is filed before admission, the court does not issue any notice. It only hears both the sides and passes appropriate orders. Something is done by the Court before granting a stay order under O.XLI, R.5 of the C.P.C. At that stage, the court has the discretion to give such opportunity to the respondent as ends of justice may require before granting or giving stay orders. Judiciary has a discretion in these matters, sometime large and sometime limited, and restricted, but it is never without it. The judicial discretion is neither caprice, nor whim, nor extrinsic, but a complex and inherent process where the reasons combine with experience, law and justice."
14.Further, she also relies on the decision in M.Ranka V. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Madras and 3 others 1991 2 L.W. at page 225 at page 231 wherein it is inter alia observed that "... All that a Court is expected to do on the face of a caveat is to beware and to hear the caveat or before a decision is taken. A caveator does not get a right to defeat the proceedings at the threshold or to insist that he must be heard on merits of the case before any interim order is passed. The hearing at the stage of the admission of an appeal to the caveator will not take the place of a final hearing of the appeal at the end of the proceeding.' Moreover, it is also held that 'a caveat is nothing but a formal notice, which literally is not different from a caution. Its origin as a petition to Court is generally traced to the proceedings in the Courts of probate. It is just an intimation given to the Court notifying it that it ought to beware or suspend proceedings before it until the merits of the caveat are determined. It does not create any obligation upon the Court to desist from making any order in the proceeding before it unless the caveat is decided.'
15.Added further, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent cites the decision in Reserve Bank of India Employees Association and another V. The Reserve Bank of India and others AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 246 wherein it is observed that 'an interim order passed by the Court without giving a notice to caveator is not without jurisdiction and is operative till set aside in appropriate proceedings.' She also relies on the decision in Akbar Ali and others V. Alla pitchai 2000-1-L.W. at page 843 wherein it is inter alia observed that 'it is true that in certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure a reference is made to the agent of the party. However, that does not mean that whenever and wherever a reference is not made to a counsel or an agent a notice to an agent or a Counsel is bad in law. It is necessary to remember that Section 148-A of C.P.C. cannot be read in a closed jacket or in isolation; the same will have to be read in conjunction with the provisions reflected in Order 3, Rules 1, 5 and 6 of C.P.C. as also Rule 19 of Civil Rules of Practice.' In the aforesaid decision at page 845 it is also observed that '... Looked at from any point of view we are of the view that notice to the Lawyer of the Caveator should be given. Further, it is also necessary to remember that if that course of action is not followed status of a Lawyer who is an Officer of the Court is likely to be diluted. However, we hasten to add here that in a given case instead of issuing a notice to the Advocate, a notice is given, in fact, to the party, the same cannot be considered as bad in law if it has not otherwise prejudiced him in the context of the circumstances referred to by us earlier. At the same time, we make it clear that it should be the duty of the Court to cause the notice of the application on the Lawyer.'
16.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ petitioner submits that the filing of the caveat is complete as soon as the same is filed along with the postal receipt for having sent a notice of the caveat to the applicant and then the Court is required to serve a notice on the application for an interim order on the caveator before passing an order and in support of the said contention, she relies on the decision in G.C.Siddalingappa V. G.C.Veeranna AIR 1981 Karnataka 242 wherein it is observed that 'where the caveat was filed along with postal receipt for having sent a notice of the caveat to the applicant who had filed an application for interim order, the Court would be required to serve a notice of the application for an interim order on the caveator before passing an interim order because the filing of the caveat was complete as soon as the same was filed along with the postal receipt for having sent a notice of the caveat to the applicant, etc.'
17.Another decision in M.Krishnappa Chetty and another V. P.E.Chandrasekaran @ Chandran 1993 1 MLJ at page 18 is cited on the side of 1st respondent to the effect that 'the proper procedure to be adopted in all cases where caveat has been filed is for the plaintiff/petitioner to serve copies of the plaint and application on the caveator's counsel or the caveator before filing them in Court. He must inform the caveator or his counsel as the case may be, the date on which he will move the application before Court. He must also file acknowledgments of the receipt of copies obtained from the caveator's counsel or the caveator as the case may be, in Court along with the application. On receiving such papers the office of the Court shall, while fixing the date for the first hearing of the application prepare a note and bring it to the notice of the presiding officer concerned that caveat has been entered and the caveator's counsel or the caveator has been served with copies of plaint and the application. The presiding officer shall direct the office of the court to issue notice to the caveator's counsel or the caveator, as the case may be, specifying the date on which the matter will be heard in the first instance. The Court shall inform the petitioner's counsel also of the said date and on that date both sides shall be heard before any interim order is passed. This procedure shall strictly be followed by all the subordinate courts. There shall be no lapse in following this procedure, etc.'
18.Moreover, on the side of the 1st respondent, the decision in Morganstanley Mutual Fund V. Karthick Das 1994 STPL (LE) 18957 SC = 1994 4 SCC 225, is relied on to the effect that 'exparte injunction could be granted in exceptional circumstances and the Court must record reasons for the same.'
19.It is pertinent to point out that Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be construed as a right given to an individual to lodge a caveat, where an application is expected to be made or has been made in a suit or a proceedings instituted or a proceedings instituted or about to be instituted in a suit. Therefore, even in cases, where it is not possible to identify or locate a person or persons who are likely to institute a suit or a proceedings, and make an application in such a proceeding, still a caveat petition can be lodged and if such caveat petition is lodged, such a petition is required to be registered by the Court. As a matter of fact, just because sub-section (2) of Section 148-A provides for service of notice of such a caveat petition on an individual, who is expected to file a suit or a proceedings and the requirement of the said sub-section cannot be complied with, cannot be a ground to refuse or to reject the caveat petition. Indeed, the ingredient of sub-section (2) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code is required to be complied with when it is capable of doing so. That apart, the substantive right to lodge a caveat cannot be taken away on the basis that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code cannot be complied with. Wherever the ingredient of the said provision is incapable of compliance, it will be within the discretion of the Court, if valid grounds are shown for non-compliance of the said provision, to dispense with the compliance of sub-section (2) of 148-A of Civil Procedure Code and direct the office to register the caveat in the considered opinion of this Court. However, when a caveat petition is lodged, the caveator should specify, with certainty, the subject matter of the dispute, in a suit or proceedings likely to be instituted, if that is specified, it is open to the Court before which the caveat is lodged in its discretion, to dispense with the requirement of sub-section(2) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code, if an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is filed praying for dispensation of such requirement.
20.At this stage, this Court points out that in the decision in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others V. M.L.Mudgal 1995 All India High Court Cases2793 it is inter alia observed that 'the provision under Sec.148-A and the object of its inclusion in Civil P.C. By 1976 amendment does not require that the caveator should be heard before the Court admits a proceeding. It is only a matter of procedure between the party seeking admission and the Court. Want of notice at stage of admission to caveator does not invalidate the admission. No prejudice is caused to the caveator and admission can be challenged at the time of final hearing.' Moreover, in State of Karnataka and others V. Nil AIR 2000 Karnataka at page 70 it is inter alia observed that 'the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 148 ought to be construed as directory in nature, in the considered opinion of this Court.'
21.As far as the present is concerned, the 1st respondent/petitioner's counsel has addressed a letter to the petitioner/6th respondent counsel's chamber address at 370 New Law Chambers, High Court, Chennai stating that he has filed the above revision petition against the orders passed in I.A.No.19924 of 2008 in O.S.No.8178 of 2008 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, copies of the grounds, affidavit petition and the typed set are enclosed herewith and the same has been sent through speed post on 03.12.2008 as seen from the postal receipt to that effect. However, on the side of 1st respondent/revision petitioner, the acknowledgment card for the service of notice on the caveator has not been filed in the office of the Registry. Even though a plea is taken on the side of 1st respondent revision petitioner that they have informed the Court that the caveator could not be served and that papers had been sent the previous day by speed post, the postal receipt filed into Court etc., the same cannot be a substitute to brush aside the essential ingredients of sub-Section(2) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code. It would have been desirable for 1st respondent/revision petitioner to have filed an affidavit in the office of Registry before the matter has been brought before the Court on 04.12.2008. If 1st respondent/revision petitioner has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons as to the non-compliance of sub-Section (2) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code in the office of Registry then, it is open to the Court before which the caveat is lodged in its discretion, to dispense with the requirement of sub-Section (2) of Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code, if an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is filed seeking dispensation of such requirement. But, in the instant case, such a procedure has not been resorted to. Whereas only after the petitioner/6th respondent in M.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2008 has raised a demur that caveator has not been served, the 1st respondent/petitioner has filed a counter explaining his stand in detail in regard to the non-service of caveat and the matter being informed to the Court that caveator could not be served and that papers had been sent on the previous day by speed post, the postal receipt had also been filed into Court etc. As a matter of fact, the Registry ought not to have numbered the interim applications when admittedly the caveator has not been served. Even in the cause list of 04.12.2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in CRP.(PD).SR.No.99790 of 2008 has come up for hearing before the Court in regard to dispensation of filing of original impugned order dated 21.11.2008 in I.A.No.19924 of 2008 the name of the caveator has not been printed.
22.On a perusal of the Caveat Petition No.4891 of 2008 filed by the petitioner/6th respondent indicates that an endorsement 'stamp defaced and punched may be filed' has been made by the concerned staff of the office of Registry dated 25.11.2008 in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in CRP(PD). No.4051 of 2008 separate endorsements to the following effect are found 'Caveat No.4891 of 2008 stamp defaced and punched may be filed dated 04.12.2008 signed by the concerned staff of the office of the Registry. M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 bears the Nos.99794 and 99793 respectively. In M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 the office of the Registry has not obtained an endorsement from 1st respondent/revision petitioner to the effect as to whether notice has been served either on the caveator or his counsel. Moreover, in the instant case, the Court as per Section 148-A(3) of Civil Procedure Code has not given a specified date for hearing of the interlocutory applications A sufficiently reasonable and definite time to a caveator to appear and also to oppose the interlocutory application intended to be moved by a party must be given in normal course, in the considered opinion of this Court.
23.In M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 this Court while ordering notice of motion returnable in two weeks has passed an order inter alia observing that there will be an order of interim suspension in respect of the orders passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.19924 of 2008 in O.S.No.8178 of 2008 dated 21.11.2008 and also deferring the proceedings in the said suit.
24.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and inasmuch as the provision under Section 148-A of Civil Procedure Code is a matter of procedure between the party seeking admission and the Court, this Court is of the considered view that a caveator at the initial stage has no right to insist that he ought to be heard relating to the case before any interim order is passed and the Court has wide power to pass interim orders in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008 on the merits of the case and the said passing of the interim orders without giving a notice to caveator is not without jurisdiction and the same is not invalid and will be in operation till the same are set aside in an appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law and viewed in this perspective, liberty is given to the petitioner/6th respondent to set aside the orders passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 dated 04.12.2008 in accordance with law, if so advised.
25.With these observations, M.P.Nos.5 and 6 of 2008 are disposed of.
26.Before parting, this Court is of the considered view that in cases where the caveat has been filed, it is for the petitioner/applicant to serve copies of the grounds, affidavit petition, typed set and the copies of the plaint etc. and application on the caveator's counsel or the caveator before filing them in the office of the Registry. The petitioner/applicant ought to inform the caveator or his counsel as the case may be, the date on which he will move the application before the Court. As a matter of fact, he must also file acknowledgments of the receipt of copies obtained from the caveator's counsel or the caveator as the case may be, in the office of the Registry along with the application. On receipt of such papers, the office of the Registry may, while fixing the date for the first hearing of the application, consider the feasibility of preparing a note and bring it to the notice of the concerned Court that caveat has been entered and the caveator's counsel or the caveator has been served with copies of plaint and the application. Thereafter, on the orders of Court, the office of the Registry may issue a notice to the caveator's counsel or the caveator, as the case may be, indicating the date on which the matter will be heard in the first instance and thereafter before any interim order is passed. Since an Advocate is an officer of Court, he may not refuse/decline to receive the notice of caveat being served on him, in the best interest of the noble profession. When a caveat has been lodged as per Section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the Registry shall print the name of the caveator or his counsel in the cause list without fail. By resorting to this procedure, this Court fervently opines that it will avoid complications/lapses.
sgl