AIR 2000 KARNATAKA 389 ::(2000) ILR (Kant) 2760 ::(2000) 4 CivLJ 390 ::2001 (2) KantLJ 129

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): G. C. Bharuka, Manjula Chellur , JJ

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.148A(2)— Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice (1967) , R.16A— Caveat petition - Filed without disclosing name of applicant on whom notice is to be served - Has to be rejected as not maintainable. AIR 2000 Kant 70, Overruled. The caveat petition filed without disclosing name of the applicant on whom notice is to be served under Sec. 148-A(2) has to be rejected as not maintainable. The scheme of Sec. 148-A does not create an absolute and unconditional right in favour of the caveator to file caveat with an assurance of his being heard rather it has been coupled with a corresponding duty on his part to serve notice on the applicant who must necessarily be known person, who may try to seek an order detrimental to him. But for this, the caveator cannot in law exercise right flowing from sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 148-A of the Code. This is the plain and simple reading of Sec. 148-A. There is no occasion to dilute the same only because in some exceptional cases, the caveator may apprehend that some unknown person may move the court and seek ex parte order adverse to his interest. The word used in sub-sec. (2) is 'shall' which is always to be read as mandatory unless there are compelling reasons to read it as 'may' thereby making the provisions directory. There are no reasons to resort to any such dilutory interpretation. Keeping in ....