Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J. SANGMA, J.
Ranjit Kr.Malo Das and another -Appellant
Versus
Khanindra Nath Gayan -Respondent
C. Revn. No. 177 of 1993
Decided On : 25-05-1993
Caveat - Civil Procedure Code - Opportunity of Hearing for Caveators
Fact of the Case:
The defendant-petitioner filed a caveat apprehending a petition for injunction by the plaintiff-respondent. The caveat was rejected, and injunction was granted against the defendant-petitioner without a hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the caveat and the subsequent injunction order were wrong and resulted in injustice to the petitioner. The court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to accept the caveat and rehear the injunction matter with an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner.
Issues: Rejection of caveat without hearing, grant of injunction without opportunity of hearing
Ratio Decidendi: When a party files a caveat under section 148A of the Civil Procedure Code, the court must provide an opportunity of hearing before passing an order that would go against them. If the court rejects the caveat, it cannot pass an adverse order against the caveators.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to accept the caveat and rehear the injunction matter with an opportunity of hearing for the petitioner. No costs were awarded.
Heard Mr. D. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner.
2. Title Suit No. 14/93 was pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Barpeta. In that Court, the defendant-petitioner appeared by a Caveat on 11-5-93 apprehending that the plaintiff-respondent would file petition for injunction. The learned Asstt. District Judge by order dated 13-5-93 rejected the caveat and granted injunction on 18-5-93 against the defendant-petitioner. When a party files caveat u/s. 148A, C.P.C. the Court has to give an opportunity of hearing to them if it has to pass an order which would go against them. If the Court rejects the caveat, it cannot pass an adverse order against the caveators.
3. Heard also Mr. D. C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party. He fairly conceded that the impugned order dated 18-5-93 (in T. S. 14/93) was wrong. In my opinion, the learned Asstt. District Judge has committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and the order passed by him rejecting the caveat has resulted in injustice to the petitioner.
4. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to accept the caveat and rehear the injunction matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. The petition is disposed of. No costs.
Order accordingly.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
