The judgment clarified that the provisions of section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to execution applications under Order 21, Rule 43 or Rule 54, where the judgment-debtor is not entitled to be heard.

Headnote:
CAVEAT - Civil Procedure Code - The court held that the provisions of section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code are not attracted to execution applications under Order 21, Rule 43 or Rule 54, as the judgment-debtor is not entitled to be heard in such proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The defendants filed a caveat under section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code in an application for execution made by the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 54 and Order 21, Rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defendants were not entitled to file a caveat in the application for execution of a decree, as the provisions of section 148-A were not attracted to such execution applications.
Issues: The issue was whether the defendants were entitled to file a caveat in the application for execution of a decree under Order 21, Rule 43 or Rule 54 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code are not attracted to execution applications under Order 21, Rule 43 or Rule 54, as the judgment-debtor is not entitled to be heard in such proceedings.
Final Decision: The court directed the caveat to be taken off the file and ordered the office to proceed with the execution proceedings. The application for stay of the operation of this order was rejected.

JUDGMENT - SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.:---The defendants have filed a caveat under section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code in an application for execution made by the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 54 and Order 21, Rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under section 148-A of the Civil Procedure Code sub-section (1) provides as follows :---

"148-A. (1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof."

Under section 148-A (1) therefore, any person who claims a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of an application can file a caveat under that section in anticipation of such application being made. The result of filing such a caveat is that once such a caveat is filed a notice of any application in such a suit or proceeding must be given to the caveator. The filing of a caveat prevents ex parte orders being made in proceedings where the caveator has ordinarily a right to be heard. The provisions of section 148-A are, therefore, attracted in cases of such proceedings where the caveator is entitled to be heard in the ordinary course. Section 148-A may also apply to those proceedings where the Court is its discretion, hears the party who has filed the caveat, before passing orders. Applications, for execution under Order 21, Rule 43 or Rule 54 are not proceedings where the judgment-debtor has a right to be heard. In fact there is no provision in law for issue of a notice to the judgment-debtor in applications for execution except in specific cases enumerated in Order 21, Rule 22 and Order 21, Rule 37. Since the judgment-debtor is not a party who has a right to be heard or is ordinarily heard in applications under Order 21, Rule 43 or Order 21, Rule 54, the provisions of section 148-A are not attracted to such execution applications. The defendants are, therefore, not entitled to file a caveat in such application for execution of a decree, passed against them. Caveat is directed to be taken off the jail. Office to proceed with the execution proceedings.

2. Mrs. Shastri applies for stay of the operation of this order.

Application rejected.

-----

Click Here to Read the rest of this document