SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(All) 261

K.C.AGRAWAL, R.K.GULATI
CHANDRAJIT – Appellant
Versus
GANESHIYA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.N.SINGHA, S.N.Singh

K. C. AGARWAL, J.


( 1 ) ON a reference made by the Honble the Chief Justice, the application filed by the plaintiff respondents in the second appeal for acceptance of caveat has been listed before us.

( 2 ) THE controversy in a not shell is whether S. 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to appeals. Section 148-A providing for a "right to lodge a caveat" has been inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (104 of 1976 ). Recommending this new provision, the Law Commission in its 54th Report observed :"in order that a party who wishes to indicate his intention to have notice of an intended application by an adverse party may be authorised to do so, a provision for caveat may be, in our view, useful. The relevant provision in the Supreme Court Rules (O. XIX, R. 2) is intended for cases where no appeal is pending, but a similar provision, modified so as to be applicable to cases where a suit is pending as well as to those where a, suit is about to be instituted would be helpful. "

( 3 ) SUB-SECTION (5) of S. 148-A provides that a caveat lodged under Sub-Sec. (2) shall not remain in force after the expiry of ninety days.

( 4 ) THE object of the introduct













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top