A caveat may be lodged with a view to opposing an application and not for the purpose of supporting an application that has been filed or is expected to be filed by a party in a suit or proceeding.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is at the instance of the decree-holder in an execution proceeding and it is directed against order No. 64 dated January 3, 1978 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore. The only question that is involved in this Rule is whether the opposite party No, 3, the State of West Bengal was entitled to lodge a caveat under Section 148-A as introduced in the Civil P. C. by Section 50 of the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976.

( 2 ) ON May 31, 1975, the petitioner obtained a decree for ejectment and mesne profits against the judgment-debtors opposite parties in respect of the first floor and the top floor of premises No. 100, Dilkusha Street, Karaya, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 87 of 1973 of the Second Court of the Subordinate Judge, Alipore. On September 1, 1975, the petitioner put the said decree in execution in Title Execution Case No. 23 of 1975 when the Bailiff of the court accompanied by the petitioner went to deliver possession of the disputed premises, the judgment-debtors offered resistance and accordingly, the Bailiff could not execute the writ of delivery of possession and returned the same to the court together with his report about the resistance offered by the judgment-debtors. The petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the C. P. C. complaining of the resistance to delivery of possession by the judgment-debtors and their men and prayer for granting police help to the Bailiff for the execution of the writ of delivery of possession. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 37 of 1977. The notice of the said application was served upon the judgment-debtors in the usual way as well as under registered post with acknowledgment due. In spite of the service of notice, the judgment-debtors did not appear and oppose the prayer lor delivery of possession with police help. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated Sept. 24, 1977 allowed the Misc. Case and directed execution of the writ of delivery of possession by the Bailiff with police help. November 15, 1977 was fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge for the execution of the writ of delivery of possession. On Nov. 14, 1977, the judgment-debtors filed an affidavit and a petition praying for stay of the execution case. On that very day, the opposite party No. 3, the State of West Bengal filed a caveat in the form of an application under Section 148-A of the C. P. C. as inserted therein by the said amendment Act, inter alia alleging therein that on June 6, 1977 the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta had requisitioned the disputed premises under Section 3 of the Act V of 1947 after the publication and service of notices upon all the parties concerned on that date, and that on the day following, that is, on June 7, 1977, possession of the disputed premises was delivered by the judgment-debtors to the said Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. It was prayed by the opposite party No. 3 that it should be given a hearing before the writ of delivery of possession was issued. The prayer of the opposite party No. 3 was opposed by the petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner that the State of West Bengal had no locus standi to lodge a caveat under S, 148-A. Further, it was alleged by the petitioner that no notice of the requisition order was served upon him.

( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order No. 64 dated Jan. 3, 1978, came to the finding that the State of West Bengal had locus standi to lodge a caveat under Section 148-A. He assumed that there was service of the notice under Section 3 of Act V of 1947 and held that the order of requisition could not be called in question in any court. Further, he found that the judgment-debtors were no longer in possession of the disputed premises and accordingly, there was no question of executing the writ of delivery of possession against the judgment-debtors. It was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the decree-holde