AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 219 wordsJ. Sangma, J.—Heard Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner.
Title Suit No. 14/93 was pending in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Barpeta. In that Court, the defendant-petitioner appeared by a Caveat on 11-5-93 apprehending that the plaintiff-respondent would file petition for injunction. The learned Asstt. District Judge by order dated 13-5-93 rejected the caveat and granted injunction on 18-5-93-against the defendant petitioner. When a party files caveat u/s 148A, C.P.C. the Court has to give an opportunity of hearing to them if it has to pass an order which would go against them. If the Court rejects the caveat, it cannot pass an adverse order against the caveators.
Heard also Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the opposite party. He fairly conceded that the impugned order dated 18-5-93 (in T. S. 14/93) was wrong. In my opinion, the learned Asstt. District Judge has committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and the order passed by him rejecting the caveat has resulted in injustice to the petitioner.
I, therefore, allow the revision and set, aside the impugned order and direct the trial Court to accept the caveat and rehear the injunction matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner hearing to the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of. No costs.