Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Om Dutt Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Ram Dutt Sharma & Another - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2231 of 2016
Decided On : 11-08-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate.
The statutory right of notice and hearing on any interlocutory application before passing any interim order against the caveator, as provided under Section 148A CPC, must be upheld.
Headnote:
Caveat - Interim Relief - Section 148A CPC - [Section 148A CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 148A CPC and emphasized the statutory right of notice and hearing on any interlocutory application before passing any interim order against the caveator. The court referred to various judgments to highlight the importance of serving a notice of the application on the caveator and the consequences of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 148A CPC. The court set aside the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo and emphasized the need for hearing the caveator before passing any such order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside/quash an impugned order that directed for maintaining status quo. The interim relief had been granted without prior notice to the caveator, which was deemed unsustainable in the eye of the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the part of the impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo and emphasized the need for hearing the caveator before passing any such order.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the grant of interim relief without prior notice to the caveator, which was found to be unsustainable in the eye of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the statutory right of notice and hearing on any interlocutory application before passing any interim order against the caveator, as provided under Section 148A CPC.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the parties to move for recall of the order if they felt aggrieved.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others:
“Issue an appropriate order or direction setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 23.7.2016 passed by Additional Commissioner Garhwal Mandal and order dated 29.7.2016 passed by learned CRC, so far it directs for maintaining status quo.”
2. Order impugned is being reproduced herein below for convenience:
“Presented today, Caveat has been filed on behalf of the opposite party in the revision. Let caveator be informed on hearing on the maintainability of the revision. List on 10.8.2016. Till then the parties shall maintain status quo.”
3. The very purpose of filing a caveat is that the caveator should be heard before passing any interim order or otherwise. In the instant case, interim relief has been granted without prior notice to the caveator, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. Sub-section (3) of Section 148A CPC says that where, after a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the Court shall serve a notice of the application, on the caveator. In the instant case, although the notice has been directed to be served on the caveator, but, before that an interim relief has been granted in favour of the respondents.
5. In M. Mohan Babu vs. Medasani Ananda Naidu, reported in [2004] 0 Supreme (AP) 1490, Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court was observed in para-11, 12 & 13 of the judgment as below:
“11. SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 148-A of the Code requires special attention whereby the Court is obligated to serve a notice to the application, filed seeking grant of an interim order, on the caveator. To put it in a different way, the caveator has a statutory right of notice and hearing on any interlocutory application before any such interim order is sought to be passed against the caveator.
12. THIS situation has been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court way back in the year 1983 in C. Seethaiah v. Govt. of A.P. The Division Bench had elaborately dealt with all the practical situations covering the issue and the purpose and object of Section 148-A of the Code. Their Lordships relied upon the decision of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in G.C. Siddalingappa vs. G.C. Veeranna and extracted certain observations made by the learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court in G.C. Siddalingappa’s case (supra), which are re-extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“When once a caveat is filed, it is a condition precedent for passing an interim order to serve a notice of the application on the caveator who is going to be affected by the interim order. Unless that condition precedent is satisfied, it is impossible for the Court to pass an interim order affecting the caveator. The court would not absolve from serving a notice of the application on the caveator on the ground that he refused to receive the same. Even if the application was served on the caveator, unless the date and time of hearing of the application was made known to the caveator or his counsel, the requirement of serving a notice of the application on the caveator could not have been dispensed with”.
13. Again, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mayuri Granites v. Venkateswara Granites, considering the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 148-A of the Code, and referring to the Division Bench decision of this Court in C. Seethaia’s case (1 supra), held thus:
“Thus intention of the Legislature is that the caveator must be furnished with copies of petitions and documents filed by the other side and must be heard before any orders are passed and for this purpose imposes duty on both the Court and the applicant under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 148-A C.P.C. respectively and that no orders passed by the Court ex parte, when a caveat is filed. In the instant case neither the appellant served the copies of necessary documents on the caveator-respondent before filing t
