Who can file a caveat under Section 148A CPC?

Anyone who claims a right to appear at the hearing of a likely application—provided they specify the application, the expected applicant, and their own right.

Can a caveat support the other side’s application?

No. A caveat is to oppose or be heard on an incoming application; using it to back the other side is not a proper use.

Is assumed service of notice enough in execution?

No. Service of statutory notice must be verified. Courts cannot decide execution issues on unverified assumptions.

What did the High Court finally direct?

It set aside the subordinate court’s order and directed execution of the writ of delivery of possession.

Section 148A demands specificity; and service under acquisition laws needs proof—assumptions won’t do.

nirmal-chandra-dutta-v-girindra-narayan-roy-air-1978-cal-492

Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy — Caveat (S.148A CPC) & Verified Notice

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India CASE_TITLE: Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 148A CPC, caveat, execution SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Land Acquisition Act notice, service verification PUBLISH_DATE: 22 Oct 2025 Slug: nirmal-chandra-dutta-v-girindra-narayan-roy-air-1978-cal-492

Quick Jump

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Hero image for Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy case explainer

Quick Summary

Two quick lessons: (1) A caveat under S.148A CPC needs details—what application, by whom, and your right to be heard. Using a caveat to support the other side is not proper. (2) Courts cannot rely on an assumed statutory notice; service must be verified before it affects execution.

S.148A CPC Execution AIR 1978 Cal 492

Issues

Can a person lodge a caveat without naming the expected application and the right to appear?
Is it valid to assume service of a requisition notice under the Land Acquisition Act for deciding execution?

Rules

Section 148A CPC (Caveat): Caveator must state the nature of the likely application, the expected applicant, and the caveator’s right to appear.
Service of Notice (statutory): Service must be duly verified; mere assumption is not enough to affect rights in execution.

Facts — Timeline

1975: Decree for ejectment and mesne profits in favour of Nirmal Chandra Dutta.

Bailiff resisted: Judgment-debtors blocked eviction; police aid sought under O.21 R.97 CPC.

Stay claim: JD said possession was given to Land Acquisition Collector on 7 June 1977 after requisition.

State’s caveat: West Bengal filed a S.148A caveat supporting the JDs’ stay plea.

No notice? Decree-holder said no requisition notice was served on him.

Subordinate Judge: Assumed notice service; limited relief to symbolic possession and recalled eviction order.

High Court: Set aside; ordered delivery of possession.

Timeline for Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Appellant (Decree-holder)

State’s caveat was defective—no clear application or right stated; used to bolster JDs.
No verified proof of requisition notice/service; eviction must proceed.

Respondents (JDs/State)

Requisition transferred possession to the State; only symbolic possession possible.
Caveat ensured they were heard before any further execution steps.

Judgment

Held: The State’s S.148A caveat was not maintainable because it was used to support the JDs’ stay application instead of identifying and opposing a likely application. The subordinate court’s assumption of notice service was wrong. The order was set aside, and the court directed actual delivery of possession.

Ratio Decidendi

A valid caveat demands specificity and is meant to ensure hearing, not to prop up another party’s application.
Service of statutory notice must be proven; assumptions cannot control execution outcomes.

Why It Matters

It protects procedural fairness: caveats are for timely hearing with clarity, and property rights cannot be cut down by unverified notices.

Key Takeaways

State the application, applicant, and your right in a caveat.
Caveat is not a tool to support the other side.
Proof of service is essential before limiting execution.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NAME–WHO–WHY, then CAVEAT; PROVE–SERVE, then DECIDE.”

Name the likely application.
Who will move it & why you can be heard.
Prove service of any statutory notice before altering execution.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Validity of a non-specific caveat under S.148A CPC; effect of unverified requisition notice on execution.
Rule	S.148A requires specificity; statutory notice must be duly served/proved before affecting rights.
Application	State’s caveat supported JDs without particulars; court wrongly assumed service; both errors prejudiced decree-holder.
Conclusion	Order set aside; execution to proceed with delivery of possession.

Glossary

Caveat (S.148A): A request to be heard before an order is passed on a likely application; must identify the application and right to appear.
Symbolic Possession: Formal delivery without actual control; not a substitute where real possession is due.
Requisition Notice: Government notice taking control of property for public purpose; service must be proved.

FAQs

No. It must specify the likely application, the expected filer, and your right to be heard.

Improper. Caveats are to secure hearing on an incoming application, not to support the other side’s existing plea.

No. Courts need verified proof of service under the statute before altering execution.

It restored the eviction process by directing delivery of possession to the decree-holder.