SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(AP) 619

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
Pandu Karnudu - Appellant
Versus
Volek Koya Bangala Raju - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-92

Duty of the court to issue notice to caveator before passing an interim order when a Caveat has been filed.

Headnote:

Caveat - Duty of Court - Interim Order

Fact of the Case:

A caveat was filed prior to the appeal, but the lower court passed an interim order without hearing the caveator, resulting in the loss of crop.

Finding of the Court:

The lower court was directed to dispose of the appeal within 2 months from the date of receipt of the order.

Issues: Failure to issue notice to caveator, passing of interim order without hearing the caveator, negligence of court staff or respondents in achieving the mischief.

Ratio Decidendi: Whenever a Caveat has been filed, the court must issue a notice to the caveator before passing an interim order. Failure to do so may result in appropriate action against the court staff. The lower court is directed to dispose of the appeal within 2 months.

Final Decision: The C. R. P. is disposed of accordingly.

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) WHENEVER a Caveat has been filed, it is the duty of the Court to see that the caveator has to be issued a notice, without hearing the caveator, it is neither desirable nor permissible for the court to pass an interim order. In this case, a caveat has been filed much prior to the filing of the appeal. The lower Court passed an interim order without hearing or giving an opportunity to the caveator. In cases where a caveat has been filed, and it was not placed before the court at the time of hearing the case, it is the duty of the Presiding Officers to take appropriate action against the concerned clerk for not bringing the caveat to the notice of the court. In this case eventhough a caveat has been filed, the other side was able to get an order and the crop has been taken away, and the mischief has already been achieved either by the negligence of the staff or by the part played by the respondents herein at the time of obtaining the order. Hence the lower Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. The C. R. P. is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top