The mandatory nature of the provisions under Sec. 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the corresponding duty of the caveator to serve notice on the applicant, emphasizing the practical implications and the need to ensure smooth working of the system.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has lodged the present caveat petition purporting to be under Sec. 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code') read with Rule 39 of Part IV of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 framed by this Court, without showing the name of any person or authority who is likely to file any application seeking any order from this Court adverse to the petitioner's interest. Instead, he has filed a separate application seeking permission to exempt him from issuing any prior notice in terms of Sec. 148-A (2) of the Code by relying on the judgment of a learned single Judge in the case of State of Karnataka v. Nil, ILR 1999 Kant 2986 : (AIR 2000 Kant 70)

( 2 ) ). The learned single Judge in the case of State of Karnataka (AIR 2000 Kant 70) (supra) after referring to sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 148-A of the Code and keeping in view the prayer (sic) the caveator that despite non disclosure the name of the applicant likely to file an application for seeking interim order against the (sic) has held that :". . . . . in cases where it is not possible, with reasonable certainty, to identify the person or persons who are likely to institute a suit or a proceedings and make an application in such a proceedings, in my view, 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. Merely because sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148-A provides for service of notice of such a caveat petition on a person, who is expected to institute a suit or a proceedings and the requirement of the said sub-sec. cannot be complied with, cannot be a ground to refuse to reject the caveat petition. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148-A of the Code is required to be complied with when it is capable of being complied with. In cases where the person who is likely to institute a suit or proceedings cannot be ascertained with certainty, the question of complying with the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148a does not arise. In my considered view, the substantive right provided to lodge the caveat cannot taken away on the ground that the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148a cannot be complied with. The provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148, in my view, must be understood as directory in nature. Wherever the requirement of the said provision is incapable of compliance, it will be within the discretion of the Court if valid grounds are made out for non-compliance of the said provision, to dispense with the compliance of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148a of the Code and direct the office to register the caveat. However, it is necessary to point out that 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, as observed by me earlier, it is open to the Court before which the caveat is lodged in its discretion, to dispense with the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148a of the Code, if an application under Sec. 151 of the Code for dispensing with the requirement of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 148a of the Code. Under these circumstances, the office was, in my view justified in raising an objection with regard to the maintainability of the caveat petition. "

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, in Caveat Petition No. 5136/99, Kumar Rajaratnam, J. disagreeing and doubting the correctness of the view taken in the case of State of Karnataka (AIR 2000 Kant. 70) (supra), has referred the matter to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the issues. According to him, apart from the provision contained under Sec. 148-A (2) being mandatory conferring no discretion on the Court to waive its requirement, the interpretation given in the reported judgment causes enormous practical difficulties for the Registry of this Court and Registries of all the Civil Courts in the State of Karnataka.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the present caveator, he is the owner of Cinema Theatre 'apsara' situate at