IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Nagireddy Tulasi Katyayini – Appellant
Versus
Bathina Sujatha – Respondent
CRP No.3145 of 2024
Decided on : 07-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural defects in caveat handling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. rights of caveators under section 148-a cpc. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. judicial duty to hear caveators. (Para 9 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. section 148-a of c.p.c. mandates court notification to caveators. (Para 10) |
| 5. mandatory compliance with notice provisions in caveat cases. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 6. proposed improvements in caveat processing. (Para 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. duty of the court to verify caveats during filings. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 8. final directives for future compliance. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. final direction to list cases considering proper notifications. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The copy of the C.R.P., was not served to the learned Counsel for the respondent/caveator. Such objection was raised, upon which vide order dated 20.12.2024 Registry was directed to submit the report, that once there was caveat, how could the CRP be numbered without serving the copies of the petition to the caveator.
2. The Registry submitted a report as follow :
Hence, the Registry has processed the CRP and numbered and posted without having the knowledge about the caveat petition. After numbering the CRP No.3145 of 2024 was sent to CRP Section, and the CRP Section has put up the caveat in the bundle".
3. Not being satisfied with the office report by order dated 27.12.2024, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to submit the report "clearly pointing out the procedure for filing the Caveat; as also its intimation to CRP Section and to Registry. It shall be indicated if the caveat is not reported to the Registry, while processing the CRP".
4. The Registrar (Judicial) has submitted a detailed report dated 02.01.2025, relevant portion, of which reads as under :
The Assistant, who looks after Caveats, as soon as he receives them daily from the Scrutiny Officers in the evening, shall make necessary entries in the Caveats Register (J.R.11) to be maintained, District-wise. Immediately after receipt of fresh Cases during the day, the Caveats Assistant has to verify each and every Case and find out whether any Caveats are pending in respect of Case on hand from the Caveats Register (J.R.11). In case, any Caveat entry is found in the concerned Caveat Register (J.R.11), he has to make necessary entries with regard to the particulars of such fresh Cases in the Caveat Register (J.R.11) as well as in the concerned Case Ledgers (J.R.45). He shall, then, put up the Caveat in the said Case and feed the Name of the Counsel who filed the Caveat in the computer. In Case of non-availability of the Caveat, he has to endorse on the docket of such Cases about the non-availability of the Caveat as "No Caveat".
It is also his duty to verify the expiry of "time limit", as envisaged in Section 148-A C.P.C. and he has to make necessary entries in the Caveat Register (J.R.11) to that effect. Then, the Cases will pass on for recording Case particulars.
| Register of Caveats (District-Wise) (J.R.11) | |||||
| S.R. No. | Date of | Date of | Appellant/ | Lower Court | No of the |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
The Cases, in which Lunch Motion permissions are obtained, shall be filed by 11.30 a.m., after obtaining the initials from the Deputy Registrar concerned for being placed before the Hon'ble Court by 02.15 p.m., on the same day. Papers filed after 11.30 a.m., will be treated as "Motions" and, if found in order, w
The court emphasized that non-compliance with caveat procedures under Section 148-A C.P.C. violates natural justice, necessitating recall of any adverse interim orders.
The court upheld the validity of an interim order despite procedural claims regarding caveat linkage, emphasizing that the revision was filed prior to the caveat.
A caveator must demonstrate a valid caveatable interest and timely pursue legal action; failure to do so results in the caveat being removed.
The court emphasized that orders affecting rights must follow due process, ensuring fair opportunity for all parties before any decision is made.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.