Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to appeals.

( 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 introduction of S. 148-A for caveat in the Code is to afford an opportunity of hearing to a person as against whom a proceeding is likely to be instituted This is obviously with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

( 5 ) AFTER the enforcement of S. 148-A, the High Court started accepting caveates in first and second appeals as well as other analogous proceedings till a learned single Judge of this Court upheld in Second Appeal No. 720 of 1987, Pheru Singh v. Nayadar, a preliminary objection of the appellant that the respondent id not have any right to file a caveat and to claim hearing on its basis at the time of admission of the appeal. While rejecting the caveat, the learned Judge held that till the appeal was not admitted, the respondent could not claim any hearing.

( 6 ) WE have already noted above the object with which S. 148-A was inserted. It was to give an opportunity to the person as against whom proceedings have been lodged in the court of hearing so that injustice was not done to him and an order was not obtained or procured by hiding the facts which may have a relevance on the decision of the controversy. This was done with a view to prevent ex parte orders being passed.

( 7 ) ORDER XLI, R. 11 of the C. P. C. does not in terms grant a right of hearing at the admission stage to a party as against whom an appeal has been filed. But, the powers of the Court to hear the opposite party of respondent, where ends of justice require, are unlimited. Normally, better justice is likely to be done if the two sides are heard. At the stage where the caveat is filed before admission, the court does not issue any notice, It only hears both the sides and passes appropriate orders. Something is done by the Court before granting a stay order under O. XLI, R. 5 of the C. P. C. At that stage, the court has the discretion to give such opportunity to the respondent as ends of justice may require before granting or giving stay orders. Judiciary has a discretion in these matters, sometime large and sometime limited, and restricted, but it is never without it. The judicial discretion is neither caprice, nor whim, nor extrinsic, but a complex and inherent process where the reasons combine with experience, law and justice.

( 8 ) A caveat is only an intimation to a Judge or officer notifying that the opposite party be given an opportunity to be heard before any action is taken on the application or proceeding initiated by the other side. It is a request which, if attended to, will help the court in doing justice in between the parties. There is not so much question of entitlement of right of the person filing the caveat to be heard at the admission of such a hearing or granting of the stay order as it is the desirability of making a provision on the lines of the Supre