What is CAVEAT ?

Caveat application in the Indian court means that you are requesting any court that if in case a specified person or organisation files a case in the court in which you are  having some valid interest — than no order should be passed by that Hon’ble court without giving you a notice about that case being filed and also without listening your side in that matter. 


 Caveat petition is a precautionary measure which is undertaken by people usually when they are having very strong apprehension that some case is going to be filed in the court regarding their interest in any manner.
 The caveat petition remains in force only for 90 days and if during that duration no case gets filed from the opposite side than — you have to again file a fresh caveat petition as new in the court.
 you have to clearly specify the name of the opposite party– whom you apprehend to file a case against you.
Caveat: A Caveat is an entry made in the books of the offices  of a register or court to prevent a certain step being taken without previous notice to the person entering the caveat. In other words, a caveat is a caution or warning giving notice to the court not to take any step without notice being given to the party lodging the care at. It is very common in testamentary proceedings. It is a precautionary measure taken against the greater of probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, by the person lodging the caveat.  Section 148-A of the code of civil procedure  provides for lodging of a caveat.
  Object:  A caveat protects the caveator’s interest. The caveator is already ready to face  the suit or proceedings which is expected to be instituted by his opponent. Hence no ex-parte order shall be passed against the caveator. The caveat avoids multiplicity  of proceedings. Thus it saves the expenses costs and conveniences of the Courts.
  Examples:  A is owner of a house-site. He wants to construct a building He got the permission  from the Municipality. A started construction. Meanwhile, B the neighbourer  claimed some of the land of A and objected  the construction, on the pretext of some bias, immediately on the day of threatening itself. A filed a caveat against B in the competent civil court praying the Court to give him a notice before passing any interim order or relief in case if B files any application before the Court, so that  he could give the answer to the claim of B.
  Form:  No form is prescribed for the caveat. The caveator may file a caveat in the form an application or petition before the court submitting the cause of action giving the name and description of the opponent. The copy of the application shall be sent  to the opponent party in advance by Registered post Acknowledgement due, before filing it in the court.
  Right of the Caveator:  A caveat protects the interests of caveator.  The court must give a notice to the caveator or to his advocates. If the opponent  party files proceedings/application for the interim order. The court shall not give any ex parte interim order to the opponent party without hearing the caveator.
  Time Limit:  The caveat will remain in force for 90 days from the date of filing.


   Important Points:
  1. Caveat can be filed only to oppose the application and not to support.
  2. Notice  upon the caveator  filing the date of hearing of the application is a must. It is a mandatory under the Section 148-A
  3. Section 148-A applies only to trial courts, but not appellate courts
  4. In the execution of the decree 21, Orders 22 and 37 enact for the issue of a notice to the judgments debtor, under some given circumstances. This gives  the meaning that in cases not covered by such provisions, notice of execution is not necessary. Therefore, the judgment debtor is not entitled to a notice of an execution of a decree  at the initial stage by lodging a caveat anticipating such an execution.
  5. In Reserve Bank of India Employees Association Vs RBI the plaintiffs filed a caveat before the court. The court before expiry of 90 days, issued an interim ex parte order against the plaintiffs without serving them a notice  and without hearing them. The ex parte interim order was held to be bad by the Supreme Court.