Judgement means the reasoning given by the court in order to support its decision.

No special
paramount is given to judgment except saying that it represents the reason the led the court to its
decision. According to Wharton’s law lexicon, judgment is A judicial determination putting
an end to the action by any award or redress to one party or discharge of the other as the
case may be.

Definition: Judgment is defined under sec. 2(9) of the Civil Procedure Code as follows:
Judgment means the statement given by the judge on the ground of a decree or order.
A judgment is said to be the final decision of the court on the said matter before the court in the
form of suit towards parties and to the world at large by formal pronouncement in open court.
Order 20, Rule 4(2) says that a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points
for determination, the decision thereon and all the reasons for such decision.

Judgment: The court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open court
either at once or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day and when the
judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the court shall fix a day for the purpose of
which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. [1] It is not necessary that the
court shall read out the whole judgment but may only pronounce the result of the case or read the
operative portion of the judgment. The judge is not expected to write his judgment before the
finishing of the entire evidence and hearing the arguments of counsel and if he does so he
commits a gross irregularity in the trial of the case as mention in Mst. Kaushilya v. Arat Lal.
1933.

The court after the case has been heard shall pronounce judgment in an open court, either at once
or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some
future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders.

Provided that when the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by
the Court to pronounce the judgment within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the
case was concluded but where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of the exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement
of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date on
which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to
the parties or their pleaders.

Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the court on
each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the
court to read out the whole judgment.

The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open court to a shorthand-writer if the judge is
specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf: Provided that where the judgment is
pronounced by dictation in open court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after
making such correction as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it
was pronounced, and form a part of the record. A Judge shall pronounce a judgment written but
not pronounced by his predecessor.

Important Concepts

Res Sub-Judice and Res Judicata (Sec. 10,11)

Nature, Scope and Objective

The principle of res sub-judice prevents the court from proceeding with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly or
substantially the same with the previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court where the issue is previously instituted is
pending has the power to grant the relief sought.

This rule is applicable to the trial of the suit and not the institution. It does not restrict the court from passing interim orders like injunction or
stay. However, it applies to revisions and appeals.

The purpose behind this rule is to prevent multiplicity of cases in courts. It is also sought to prevent the plaintiff from getting two separate
decisions from different courts in his favour or two contradictory judgements. It also ensures to protect the litigant from unnecessary
harassment. The policy of law is to restrict the plaintiff to one legislation, thus obviating the possibility of two conflicting verdicts by one and
the same court in respect of the same relief.

Conditions
Section 10 of the Civil Procedural Code, 1908 deals with the conditions required to apply the principle of res sub judice. The conditions in the
process of application of res sub-judice are:

Where the matter in issue is same

Section 10 clearly states that the matter in issue in both the suits must be directly or substantially be the same.In other words there must be
two suits one that is previously instituted and another that is subsequently substituted. The issues of both the suits should be the same to get
the benefit of this principle, it is not sufficient if only one or two issues are common. In the circumstances where the entire issues are not the
same, the court may exercise its power under Section 151 and stay the trial in a subsequent suit or the trial of the suit may be consolidated.
The power of courts to stay the trial under Section 151 is discretionary in nature and can be exercised only when there is an abuse of process
of court and if it defeats the ends of justice.

According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872 “matter in issue” are of two kinds:

Matter directly and substantially in issue– Here “directly” means immediately i.e. without any intervention. The word “substantially” implies
essentially or materially.

Matter collaterally and incidentally in issue– It is just contrary to the matter directly or substantially in issue.

 Where the parties in suits are same

The two suits should have the same parties or their representatives.

 Where the title of the suit is same

The title of both the suits for which the parties are litigating should also be same.

 Where the suit must be pending

The former suit must be pending in the court while the latter suit is instituted. The word pending is for the previously instituted suit, where
the final decision has not been arrived at.

 In a competent court
Section 10 also specifies that the former suit must be pending before a court which is competent to carry out the trial. If the former suit is
pending before an incompetent court, no legal effects can flow from it.

Illustrations:
‘X’ and ‘Y’ decide to enter into a contract for the sale of machines. ‘X’ is the seller and ‘Y’ is the purchaser. Y defaulted in paying the amount
of the sale to X. X first filed a suit for recovery of the entire amount in Bangalore. Subsequent to this, X filed another suit at Bombay High
Court demanding Rs. 20,000 as outstanding balance. In X’s suit Y took the defence that X’s suit should be stayed since both the suits are on
similar issue. However, the Bombay court held that since X’s first suit and the second suit have similar issues similar to the first suit, the
subsequent suit is liable to be stayed.

‘P’ was an agent in Patna who agreed to sell goods in Odisha to ‘M’. ‘P’ the agent then filed a suit for balance of accounts in Patna. ‘M’ sues
the agent ‘P’ for accounts and his negligence in Odisha; while the case was pending in Patna. In this case, Patna court is precluded from
conducting trial and can petition Odisha Court to direct a stay of proceedings in Patna Court.

The moment the above conditions are satisfied, a court cannot proceed with the subsequently instituted suit since the provisions contained in
Section 10 are mandatory and the court cannot exercise its discretion. The order of stay can be made at any stage of the proceedings.

However, Section 10 takes away the power of the court to examine the merits of the case thoroughly. If the court is satisfied with the fact
that the subsequent suit can be decided purely on legal point, it is open for the court to decide in such a suit.

Test
The test of applicability for Section 10 is whether the decision in a former given suit would operate as res judicata(decided case) in the
subsequent suit. It this happens, then the latter suit must be stayed. This can also be inferred from S.P.A Annamalay Chetty vs. B.A Thornbill.

Suit pending in foreign court

The explanation clause of Section 10 clearly provides that there is no limitation on the power of an Indian court to try a subsequent instituted
suit if the previously instituted suit is pending in a foreign suit. This also means that the cases can be carried on simultaneously in two courts.

Inherent power to stay

The word inherent has very wide meaning which includes an inseparable part of something or an attribute or quality which is permanent and
essential. It is something which is intrinsic and attached to a person or object. Therefore, inherent powers are the powers of the courts which
are inalienable i.e., something which can be separated or taken away from the courts and they exercise it in order to provide complete justice
to the parties.

Even where the provisions of Section 10 do not strictly apply, a civil court has inherent power under Section 151 to stay a suit to achieve
justice. Additionally courts can also consolidate different suits between the same parties in which the matter of issue is substantially the
same. In Bokaro and Ramgarh Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and Another(1962) the matter in issue was regarding the ownership of a property. The
court in this case used its power and consolidated different issues having the same matter.

Consolidation of suits
The objective behind Section 10 is to avoid two contradictory decisions in the same matter by different courts. To overcome this the courts
can pass an order of consolidation of both the suits. In the case of Anurag and Co. and Anr. vs. Additional District Judge and Others, it was
explained that consolidation of suits is ordered under Section 151 for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the party from a multiplicity of
cases, delays and expenses. The parties are also relieved from producing the same evidence at two different places.

Effect of contravention
Any decree passed in contravention of Section 10 is not null and therefore cannot be disregarded completely. It is to be clearly understood
here that it is only the trial and not the institution of the subsequent suit which is barred under this section. But this right which is given in
favour of parties can be waived by them. Hence, if the parties in a suit decides to waive their rights and ask the court to proceed with the
subsequent suit, they cannot afterwards challenge the validity of the subsequent proceedings.

Interim orders
Interim orders are the temporary orders which are passed for a limited duration just before the final order. An order of stay under Section 10
does not take away the power of the court to pass interim orders. Therefore, the courts can pass such interim orders as it thinks fit like
attachment of property, injunction etc.

Res Judicata meaning

Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”.

In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the issue before a court has already been decided by another court and between
the same parties. Hence, the court will dismiss the case as it has been decided by another court. Res judicata applies to both civil and
criminal legal systems. No suit which has been directly or indirectly tried in a former suit can be tried again.

Res Judicata example

‘A’ sued ‘B’ as he didn’t pay rent. ‘B’ pleaded for the lessening of rent on the ground as the area of the land was less than the mentioned on
the lease. The Court found that the area was greater than shown in the lease. The area was excess and the principles of res judicata will not
be applied.

In a case, ‘A’ new lawsuit was filed in which the defendants requested that the Court dismiss the lawsuit with a plea of res judicata. She was
barred from bringing a claim of res judicata because her previous claim was dismissed for fraud. The Court said that the defence of res
judicata must be proved by evidence.

Principle of Res Judicata

The principle of res judicata seeks to promote the fair administration of justice and honesty and to prevent the law from abuse. The principle
of res judicata applies when a litigant attempts to file a subsequent lawsuit on the same matter, after having received a judgment in a
previous case involving the same parties. In many jurisdictions, this applies not only to the specific claims made in the first case but also to
claims that could have been made during the same case.

Prerequisites for Res Judicata

 A judicial decision by proficient court or tribunal,

 Final and binding and

 Any decision made on the merits

 A fair hearing

 Earlier decisions right or wrong are not relevant.

Nature and Scope of Res Judicata

Res judicata includes two concepts of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Issue preclusion is also known as collateral estoppel. Parties
cannot sue each other again after the final judgment on the basis of merits has reached in civil litigation. For example, if a plaintiff wins or
loses a case against the defendant in the case say A, he cannot probably sue the defendant again in case B based on the same facts and
events. Not even in a different court with the same facts and events. Whereas in issue preclusion it prohibits the relitigation of issues of law
that have already been determined by the judge as part of an earlier case.

The scope has been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In this case the court incorporated the rules as evidence as
a plea of an issue already tried in an earlier case. Judgment of this case was difficult as the judges should apply res judicata. It was decided
that res judicata is not exhaustive and even if the matter is not directly covered under the provisions of the section it will be considered as a
case of res judicata on general principles.

Rationale
The principle of res judicata is founded upon the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience and it applies to various civil suits and
criminal proceedings. The purpose of this principle was to inculcate finality into litigation.

Failure to Apply
When a court fails to apply Res Judicata and renders a divergent verdict on the same claim or issue and if the third court faces the same
issue, it will apply a “last in time” rule. It gives effect to the later judgment and it does not matter about the result that came differently the
second time. This situation is typically the responsibility of the parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge’s attention, and the
judge must decide how to apply it, whether to recognize it in the first place.

Doctrine of Res Judicata

The double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being put on a second trial after the case
has been judged. So the doctrine of res judicata addresses this issue and it bars any party to retry a judgment once it has been decided.

Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Court incorporates the doctrine of res judicata also known as “ rule of conclusiveness of judgment”. The
doctrine of res judicata has been explained in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorjin Debi. The judgment of the court was delivered by Das
Gupta, J. An appeal was made by landlords who attained a decree for ejectment against the tenants who were Deorajin Debi and her minor
son. However, they have not been yet able to get possession in execution soon after the decree was made. An application was made by the
tenant under Section 28 of the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act and alleged that they were the Thika tenants. This application was resisted by the
landlords saying they were not Thika Tenants within the meaning of the Act.

The tenants moved to the High Court of Calcutta under the Civil Procedure Code. The court applied the principle of res judicata to achieve the
finality in litigation. The result came that the original court, as well as the higher court, can proceed for any future litigation on the basis that
the previous decision was correct.

The doctrine of res judicata says –

  That no person should be disputed twice for the same reason.

 It is the State that decides there should be an end to a litigation

 A judicial decision must be accepted as the correct decision.

Constructive Res Judicata

The rule of constructive res judicata in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is an artificial form of res judicata. It provides that if a plea has
been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and the defendant he will not be permitted to take pleas against the same party in the
following proceeding with reference to the same matter. It is opposed to public policies on which the principle of res judicata is based. It
would mean harassment and hardship to the defendant. The rule of constructive res judicata helps in raising the bar. Hence this rule is known
as the rule of constructive res judicata which in reality is an aspect of augmentation of the general principles of res judicata.

In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, M was a sub-inspector and was dismissed from the service of D.I.G. he challenged
the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court. He said that he did not get a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the
passing of the order. However, the argument was negative and the petition was dismissed. He again filed a petition on the ground that he
was appointed by the I.G.P. and had no power to dismiss him. The defendant argued that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata.
However, the trial court, the first appellate court as well as the High Court held that the suit was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata as the plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, M and he
could have taken this argument in his earlier suit.

Res Judicata and Estoppel

Estoppel means the principle which prevents a person from asserting something that is contrary to what is implied by a previous action. It
deals in Section 115 to Section 117 of the Indian Evidence act. The rule of constructive res judicata is the rule of estoppel. In some areas the
doctrine of res judicata differs from the doctrine of estoppel –

 Estoppel flows from the act of parties whereas res judicata is the result of the decision of the court.

 Estoppel proceeds upon the doctrine of equity, a person who has induced another to alter his position to his disadvantage can not
turn around and take advantage of such alteration. In other words, res judicata bars multiplicity of suits and estoppel precludes
multiplicity of representation of cases.

 Estoppel is a rule of evidence and is enough for the party whereas res judicata expels the jurisdiction of a court to try a case and
prevents an enquiry at the threshold (in limine).

 Res judicata forbids a person averring the same thing twice in the litigations and estoppel prevents the person from saying two
opposite things at a time.

 According to the principle of res judicata, it presumes the truth of decision in the former suit while the rule of estoppel precludes
the party ton deny what he or she has once called truth.

Res judicata and Res Subjudice

The doctrine of res judicata and res subjudice varies in some factors –

 Res sub judice applies to a matter that is pending trial whereas res judicata applies to a matter adjudicated or arbitrated.

 Res subjudice prohibits the trial of a suit that is pending decision in a previous suit whereas res judicata prohibits the trial of a suit
that has been decided in a former suit.

Res judicata and Issue Estoppel

A person who has once been tried by a court of proficient jurisdiction for an offence and convicted of that offence cannot be tried again for the
same offence as long as acquittal operates. This is given under Section 300(1) of the Civil Procedure Court. A party cannot proceed to reopen
the case if the matter is finally decided by a competent or proficient court. This principle applies to criminal proceedings and it is not allowed
in the stage of the same proceedings to try a person for an offence for which he has been acquitted.

Res Judicata and Stare Decisis

Res judicata means a case that has already been decided or a matter settled by a decision or judgment. Res judicata and stare decisis both
are related to matters of adjudication (arbitration). Stare decisis rests on legal principles whereas res judicata is based on the conclusiveness
of judgment. Res judicata binds the parties while stare decisis operates between strangers and bins the courts to take a contrary view on the
law already decided. Stare decisis is mostly about legal principle while res judicata relates to controversy.

What is Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel?

The doctrine of collateral estoppel says that an issue or case that has been litigated cannot be litigated again. For collateral estoppel to apply,
the following requirements are required.
The issue in the first and second case is the same; The party against whom the doctrine is invoked had the full opportunity to litigate the
issue; That party actually litigated the issue; The issue litigated must have been necessary to the final judgment.

The doctrine of res judicata bars the re-litigation of a claim that has already been litigated. There are four factors that must be satisfied for
res judicata to apply:

 A previous case in which the same claim was raised or could have been raised;

 The judgment in the prior case involved the same parties or their privies;

 The previous case was resolved by a final judgment on the merits;

 The parties should have a fair opportunity to be heard.

For example, Abela sued John who is a supervisor for sexually harassing her and due to that, she had to quit her job. Abela provided the
evidence by producing emails written by him. But John argued that the emails were not real but the judge said that the emails were real and
could be submitted as evidence. After a few months after the trial, Abela filed a lawsuit against her employer as he did not take any action
about the complaint. If the emails that were submitted by Abela, were not genuine the issue would fall under collateral estoppel. The issue of
authenticity of the emails was already decided in the previous case and hence the court cannot redecide the issue.

Exceptions to res judicata

Cases where Res Judicata does not apply-

The principle of res judicata does not apply in the Writ of Habeas Corpus as far as High Courts are concerned. Article 32 gives

power to the Supreme Court to issue writs and some power is given to High Courts under Article 226. The Courts need to give

proper reasoning while applying the doctrine of res judicata. There are some exceptions to res judicata which allow the party

to challenge the validity of the original judgment even outside the appeals. These exceptions are usually known as collateral

attacks and are based on jurisdictional issues. It is not based on the wisdom of the earlier decision of the court but the
authority to issue it. Res judicata may not be applicable when cases appear that Can Res Judicata be waived?
In the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India it was held that the plea of res judicata may be waived by a party to a
proceeding. If a defendant does not raise the defence of res judicata then it will be waived. The principle of res judicata belongs to the
procedure and either party can waive the plea of res judicata. The court can decline the question of res judicata on the ground that it has not
been raised in the proceedings.

How to defeat Res Judicata?

The doctrine of res judicata would not apply to the case until the conditions are met. The essential condition for the applicability is that the
succeeding suit or proceeding is founded on the same cause of action on which the former suit was founded. The principle of res judicata can
be defeated when the party has filed the suit on a reasonable ground for example in case a public interest litigation has been filed there is no
reason not to extend the doctrine of res judicata. The PIL has been filed with a bona fide intention and the litigation cannot end.

Criticism to Res Judicata

Res judicata can also be applied to judgment that may be contrary to law. The doctrine of res judicata has been used for a long time and it
encloses the general effect of one judgement upon another trial or proceeding. It includes matters not only those of bar but also those
matters which should be litigated. For example, if a case has been dismissed on a specific ground by a court of law or equity and it is not
deemed as a final judgment and technically res judicata will apply but it is not justified. If the chancellor has denied equitable relief on a
principle but it was held by the court that the plaintiff is barred from proceeding as a legal remedy. Most of the equity cases involve res
judicata and do not get beyond collateral estoppel. As it raises the difficulty of overlapping more than the failure to litigate issues.

The title to real estate and the right to collect rent depended upon one and the same construction of a will. In an interpleader over the rents,
A got the decree. B appealed, without supersedeas, and secured a reversal, but, before his appeal was decided, A had sued him in ejectment,
invoking the decree, and recovered a judgment for the real estate. B did not appeal from this judgment, but, after the reversal of the decree,
he sued A in ejectment for the land, relying upon the reversal.

Restitution (Sec. 144)

Doctrine of restitution
The doctrine of restitution implies to brings the aggrieved party to the original position where the benefit of the erroneous judgment of the
court is received by the other party who was not entitled to such benefit. Restitution is not a new concept and Section 144 merely gives
statutory recognition to this principle. Section 144 of CPC deals with the application for restitution.

Section 144 states that:

When a decree or order of the Court has been:

varied/reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceedings;

is set aside/ modified in any suit instituted for that purpose.

The Court that passed the decree/order will grant restitution on receiving an application of the party entitled to the benefit

The court in the case of Mahjibhai Mohanbhai Barot vs Patel Manibhai Gokalbhai held that an application for restitution is an application for
execution of a decree.

The Supreme Court in the case of Lal Bhagwant Singh vs Rai Sahib Lala Sri Kishen Das held that the party who received the benefit of the
erroneous judgment is by law under an obligation to make restitution to the other party for his loss.

The same view was reiterated by the court in the case of Binayak Swain vs Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi, the doctrine of restitution means that,
on reversal of a decree or order, an obligation is imposed by law on the party who has received the benefit of the erroneous decree to make
restitution to the other party for his loss. This obligation automatically arises when the decree or order is reversed or modified by the Court. It
necessarily carries with it the right of restitution for all the things that have been done under the erroneous decree. The Court while making
restitution is under a duty to restore the parties, as far as possible, at the time when the erroneous action of the Court displaced them.

The Apex Court in the case of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India held that restitution is a principle of equity and is subject to the
Court’s discretion. Section 144 of CPC doesn’t grant any new substantive right to the party not already obtained under the general law. The
Court is obliged to ensure that no one goes back with a feeling that he was impaired by an act which he did on the faith of the Court’s order.

Actus curiae neminem gravabit

The Latin maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit means the act of court should not affect anyone and is founded upon the principle of equity.
The Court is obliged to ensure that no one is endured by its order and it should not pass any order to the prejudice of any person. The apex
court reiterated the maxim of actus curiae neminem gravabit in the case of Odisha Forest Development Corporation v. M/s Anupam Traders.

Conditions
In applying for restitution, the following conditions must be fulfilled:

The decree/order must have been varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or is set aside or modified. The party in respect of the reversed
or modified decree/order must be entitled to benefit by way of restitution or otherwise. The relief claimed by the party must be properly
consequential of the variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree/order.

The Orissa High Court in Banchhanidhi Das vs Bhanu Sahuani laid down certain principles to be followed for the application of restitution:

There should be an erroneous judgment passed by the court. The party to the record must have received the benefit of the erroneous
judgment. The party applying for restitution must show that as a consequence of the erroneous judgment or decree, a party received the
benefit.

The erroneous judgment or decree must have been reversed in appeal.

Who may apply?

A person may apply for restitution who:

Was a party to the order or decree being varied, reversed, set aside, or modified. Is entitled to any benefit by way of restitution or otherwise
in respect of the order or decree being varied, reversed, set aside, or modified.

Against whom restitution may be granted?

The court may grant restitution against the party who has wrongly received the benefit under the erroneous decree or order of the court. The
party receiving the benefit is under an obligation to make restitution to the party for what he has lost.

Who may grant restitution?

The court which has passed the original decree or order may grant restitution on an application being made to it by the party who is entitled
to benefit from such reversed or varied decree or order.

What remedies can the court can grant?

The court under Section 144 can make any orders as a consequence of a decree or order being varied, reversed, modified, set aside for the
refund of costs and for payment of interest, damages, compensation, and mesne profit.

Nature of proceeding
The nature of proceeding under Section 144 is execution proceedings. The process to get an order or decree into effect is called execution
proceedings.
Extent of restitution
Section 144 is not exhaustive but inclusive. Even if a matter does not fall within the scope of Section 144, the court has the power to grant
restitution on its discretion.

Inherent power to grant restitution

Under Section 151, a court has an inherent power to make such order as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent the
abuse of the process of Court other than the power to grant restitution under Section 144. The power of the court to grant restitution is not
confined only to Section 144, the court has an inherent power to grant the remedy of restitution where Section 144 does not apply. There are
different circumstances in which the court can order to restore the status quo ante (previously existing state of affairs) to meet the ends of
justice.

It was held in K.N. Krishnappa vs T.R. Gopalkrishna Setty that under Section 151 C.P.C, the inherent powers of the Court can be invoked for
restoring the parties to the position in which they were, prior to the execution.

Bar of Suit
Section 144(2) bars a separate suit instituted for obtaining any remedy if restitution or other relief could be obtained by making an
application under Section 144(1).

Caveat (Sec. 148A)

Meaning of Caveat
The caveat in Latin means “let a person be aware” and in law, it may be understood as a notice given asking not to act in a certain manner
without informing the person who gave such a notice. Under the Civil Procedure Court, the provision of caveat is dealt with in Section 148A.
Even Though CPC does not define caveat in the case of Nirmal Chand v. Girindra Narayan, the court defined caveat as a warning given by an
individual to the court that no order or judgment shall be passed without giving notice or without hearing the caveator. The person who files a
caveat is called the Caveator and the person who has instituted a suit or is likely to do so is called caveatee. The main object of caveat is to
ensure that the court does not pass ex parte orders and that the interests of the caveator are protected. Caveat also reduces the burden of
court and brings an end to the litigation as it reduces the multiplicity of proceedings. As the purpose of the caveat was to save the cost and
convenience of the court, in Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil Kadeesa Umma, the court held that no caveat can be lodged
by a total stranger to the suit.

When to lodge a Caveat?

According to Section 148A, when people apprehend that some case against them is filed or is about to be filed in any court of law in any
manner, they have a right to lodge a caveat. The Caveat may be lodged in the form of a petition under the following circumstances:

During an ongoing suit or litigation and in that the application is already been made or is expected to be made; The suit is about to be
instituted and in that suit, an application is expected to be made.

Thus, firstly it is always about an application in a suit of the proceeding and secondly that suit or proceeding can be in the present which is
already instituted or it can be in the future where a suit is not instituted yet but the same is expected. In all such situations the right to lodge
a caveat arises.

Who may lodge a caveat?

Section 148A further provides that a caveat may be filed by any person, whether a party to the suit or not, as long as the person filing the
caveat has the right to appear before the court in regard to the suit in question. Thus caveat can be filed by a third party as well, if they in
any manner are connected to the suit in question. However, as it is already discussed that a caveat cannot be lodged by a person who is a
total stranger to the case and the same principle was laid down in Kattil Vayalil Parkkum Koiloth v. Mannil Paadikayil Kadeesa Umma. To
conclude, this clause is substantive in nature and caveat may be filed by any person claiming a right to appear before the Court.

Where can a caveat be lodged?

As and when the caveator anticipates some legal proceedings to be filed against him in the near future, he can file a petition for a caveat in
any Civil Court of original jurisdiction, Appellate Court, High Court as well as Supreme Court. Civil Courts include Courts of Small Causes,
Tribunals, Forums, and Commissions. However, in Deepak Khosla v. Union of India & Ors, the court held that Section 148A of the code applies
to civil proceedings only and caveat cannot be made against petitions made under the Criminal Procedure Code or petition made under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

How to file a caveat?

A caveat under Section 148A shall be signed by the caveator or his advocate. Where the caveator is represented by an advocate, it should be
accompanied by his Vakalatnama. The caveat presented shall be registered in a caveat register maintained by the courts in the form of a
petition or any other form that may be prescribed. The register of caveat contains the date of caveat, name, and address of caveator, name
of the plaintiff, the name of the defendant and date and a number of proceedings filed as anticipated by the caveator. A caveat is always filed
with a copy, the postal proof and an application explaining to the court that a copy of the caveat has been sent to all the parties and thus the
court need not do the same. Even though the court fees of filing a caveat varies for different courts, it is generally a nominal amount of less
than INR 100. The rules and format of the caveat are similar for most of the courts.

While filing a petition of caveat in Delhi High Court, follow the below-mentioned steps:

Support the caveat petition with an affidavit. Both petition and the affidavit should be signed by the caveator; Apart from this, a vakalatnama,
impugned order (if any), and proof of service of notice of caveat is also to be submitted to the Court.

What does a caveat contain?

A caveat or a notice given to the court that certain actions may not be taken without informing the caveator should contain the following
information:

 Name of the caveator;

 Address of the caveator where the notice would be sent;

 The name of the court where such caveat is filed;

 The number of the suit and the number of the appeal if applicable;

 Brief details about suit or appeal likely to be filed;

 Name of the probable plaintiffs or appellants and the respondents.

If subsequent to the filing of a caveat, any application is made in any suit or legal proceeding, the court is required to give notice about such
an application to the caveator. When a notice has been served on the applicant, the applicant at the expense of the caveator is required to
provide the caveator with a copy of the application made by him along with any document that may have been submitted with the
application. If the court or applicant ignores the caveat and does not inform the caveator, the decree or judgment passed becomes null and
void.

The Reserve Bank of India Employees association & anr. V. The Reserve Bank of India & Ors, a caveat petition was filed by the appellants
apprehending an injunction order by the respondent. For the caveat filed, the plaintiffs were served with a notice and all other relevant papers
or documents. They were also informed that the application will be moved on 28-10-1980. However, the application was not heard on the
said date, rather heard later on 30-10-1980. The petitioners argued that as the court failed to provide the plaintiff with the notice of the
order, the judgment would be void and null, in accordance with clause (3) of Section 148A. The court disagreed with the appellants and held
that caveat gives the right to be informed about hearing of the case and not takes away the right of a court to deliver a judgment or order on
the merits of the case. Mere lodging of caveat does not deprive the court of its power to deliver orders or judgments.

However, the precedent set in the above case was overruled in C.G.C Slddalingappa v. G.C Veeranna, wherein the applicant on filing a caveat
was served with a notice. However, the case was decided on a later date without giving notice to the appellant about the same. The court
held that the provision regarding notice under Section 148A(3) is mandatory and non-compliance of the same defeats the very object of
148A, thus the order passed is void and null.

Right and duties

When a caveat is filed, it gives certain rights and duties to the caveator, applicant as well as the court. Let’s consider all these rights and
duties separately:

Rights and duties of the caveator

Clause (2) of the section provides that when a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), the caveator shall serve a notice of the caveat
to the person by whom the application has been made or is expected to be made under sub-section (1). The caveator at the time of lodging
the suit says that either there is a suit in the present and in which I expect an application is going to be made or there is an application
existing in the suit and I want to be represented, or he says that a suit is going to be filed in the future and in that suit an application will be
made and in that application I want to be represented. So whenever such an application comes, the caveator has the right to be informed.
However, before he becomes entitled to notice, he has to give a notice saying that I have lodged a caveat to the person from whom he is
expecting such an application to be made. In other words, the caveator has to serve notice by registered post, on the applicant who is going
to file this application or who has already filed an application, saying that whenever you file an application, you are bound to give notice.

Rights and duties of court

The duty of the court arises, once the caveat is lodged and notice is served upon the applicant. Clause (3) of the Section provides that after a
caveat has been lodged and thereafter any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the court has to serve a notice to the caveator. This
means that once the caveator has filed the caveat saying I want to be represented and after that, an actual application has been filed within
the next 90 days, in that case, the court will serve a notice to the caveator, informing him that the application that was expected by him has
been filed and the caveator thereby has the right to be heard before the court.

Rights and duties of the applicant

In addition to the court giving notice, the applicant is also required to serve a notice to the caveator, informing that an application in regard to
the caveat filed has been made. Clause (4) of the section, directs the applicant to provide a copy of the application made by him along with
any other document or paper that may have been fled by him in support of his application to the caveator. The Court will not move forward
with the application unless an affidavit is submitted by the applicant that a notice has been served to the caveator.
Limitation of time
As provided by the section in clause 5, the caveat stays in force for a period of 90 days. If within these 90 days an application is filed, then
the court, as well as the applicant, has to give notice to the caveator. However, if no caveat is filed within these 90 days, then no one has the
duty to inform the caveator, i.e. if the application is filed after the expiration of such period the caveat stands null and void. If the caveator
still wants to be informed then a fresh caveat needs to be lodged for the next 90 days.

Common mistakes made while filing a caveat

Some of the common mistakes made while filing caveat are as follows:

The caveat is often filed in support of an application, it is important to remember that caveat can be made only against an application;
Caveator forgets to serve a notice to the applicant, which is mandatory under Section 148A of CPC. Caveators often claim that the order or
judgment was incorrect because the notice was given, even after the expiration period. It is important to remember that after 90 days, a
fresh caveat needs to be filed.

Inherent power of Courts (sec – 148-153B)

Meaning of ‘inherent’ is existing in something as a permanent, absolute, inseparable, essential or characteristic attribute. Inherent powers of
courts are those powers which may be applied by the court to perform full and complete justice between the parties before it. It is the duty of
the Courts to serve justice in every case, whether given in this code or not, brings with it the important power to do justice in the absence of
a definite or separate provision. This power is said to be the inherent power that is maintained by the court, though not conferred. Section
151 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the inherent powers of the court.

Provisions of Section 148 to 153B of CPC

The law relating to inherent powers of Court is mentioned in Section 148 to Section 153A of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with the
exercise of powers in different situations. Following are the provisions of Inherent powers of Courts:

 Section 148 and Section 149 deals with grant or enlargement of time;

 Section 150 deals with the transfer of business;

 Section 151 protects the inherent powers of the courts; and

 Section 152, 153 and Section 153A deals with amendments in judgments, decrees or orders or in separate proceedings.

Enlargement of time
Section 148 of the CPC states that where any term is fixed or awarded by the Court for the doing of any act provided by CPC, it is the
discretionary power of the Court that the Court may enlarge such period from time to time, even though the term originally fixed or awarded
may have departed.

In simple words, when a term is fixed by provision for the doing of any act, the Court has the power to extend such period up to 30 days. This
power is exercisable in the deficiency of any specific provision to the contrary which reduces or rejects or withholds the period. The power is
limited to the extension of the time fixed by it and is of a discretionary nature.

Payment of court fees

According to Section 149 of CPC, “Where the entire or a portion of any fee commanded for any certificate by the law for the time being in
force relating to court-fees has not been met, the Court may, in its discretion, at any step, permit the person by whom such fee is payable, to
pay the whole or part as the case may be, of such court-fee; and upon such payment, the document, in regard of which such fee is payable,
shall have the same force and result as if such fee had been paid in the initial situation.”

It permits the court to allow a party to make up for the lack of court fees due on a complaint or notice of appeal etc., even after the expiry of
the limitation period for filing of the lawsuit or appeal, etc. Payment of the expected court fee is compulsory for any document imputable with
court-fee to be presented in the court. If the necessary court fee is paid within the time set by the court, it cannot be negotiated as time-
barred. Such payment made within the time fixed by the court retrospectively validates a faulty document. The power of the court is
discretionary and must be exercised only in the importance of justice.

Transfer of business
According to Section 150 of CPC, “Save as otherwise granted, where the business of any Court is assigned to any other Court, the Court to
which the business is so assigned shall have the same authority and shall make the same duties as those sequentially presented and forced
by or under this Code upon the Court from which the business was so assigned.”

For example- When the business of a court A is transferred to any other court B, the court B will exercise the same power or perform the
same duties given or commanded by CPC upon the transfer court.
Section 151 of CPC
Section 151 deals with “Saving of inherent powers of Court.” This Section states that ‘Nothing in CPC shall be considered to restrict or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be important for the ends of justice or to limit abuse of the
method of the Court.’ It is not obligatory for the court to wait for the law made by parliament or order from the higher judiciary. Court has
discretionary or inherent power to make such an order which is not given in terms of laws for the security of justice or to check misuse of the
method of the Court.

The scope of exercising of Section 151 of CPC can be represented by some cases as follows:

 The court may recheck its orders and resolve errors;

 Issuance of provisional sanctions when the case is not included by order 39 or to place alongside an ‘ex parte’ order;

 Illegal orders or orders passed without jurisdiction can be set-aside;

 Subsequent events in the case can be taken into consideration by the court;

 Power of Court to continue trial ‘in camera’ or prevent disclosure of its proceedings;

 The court can erase remarks made against a Judge; and

 The court can improve the suit and re-hear on merit or re-examine its order.

Ends of justice
In the case of Debendranath v Satya Bala Dass, the meaning of “ends of justice” was explained. It was held that “ends of justice” are solemn
words, also there’s words that are not merely a polite expression as per juristic methodology. These words also indicate that Justice is the
pursuit and end of all law. However, this expression is not vague and indeterminate notion of justice according to laws of the land and
statutes.

The Court is allowed to exercise these inherent powers in cases like- to recheck its own order and correct its error, to pass injunction in case
not included by Order 39, and an ex parte order against the party, etc.

Abuse of process of the court

Section 151 of the CPC provides for the exercise of inherent powers to check the infringement of the process of the court. Abuse of the
powers of the court which happens in unfairness to the party needs to get relief on the ground that the act of a court shall not prejudice
anyone. When a party practices fraud on the court or on a party to a proceeding, the remedies have to be provided on the basis of inherent
power.

The word ‘abuse’ is said to occur when a Court uses a method in doing something that it is never expected to do is the perpetrator of the said
abuse and there is a failure of justice. The injustice done to the party must be given relief on the basis of the doctrine of actus curiae
neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one). A party to a case will become the perpetrator of the abuse in cases when the
said party does acts like obtaining benefits by functioning fraud on the Court or a party to the proceedings, prompting the multiplicity of
proceedings, etc.

Section 152 of CPC deals with the “Amendment of judgements, decrees, and order.” According to Section 152 of CPC, the Court has the
power to change (either by own actions or on the application of any of the parties) written or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or
orders or faults arising from an unexpected lapse or imperfection.

Section 153 deals with the “General authority to amend.” This Section empowers the court to amend any fault and error in any proceedings in
suits and all required improvements shall be made for the purpose of arranging raised issues or depending on such proceeding.

Section 152 and 153 of the CPC makes it clear that the court may set correct any blunders in their experiences at any time.

Power to amend decree or order where an appeal is summarily dismissed and place of the trial to be deemed to be open Court are defined
under Section 153A and 153B of CPC,1908.

Limitation
The exercise of inherent powers carries with it certain barriers such as:

They can be applied only in the deficiency of particular provisions in the Code; They cannot be applied in dispute with what has been
expressly given in the code;

They can be applied in rare or exceptional cases; While operating the powers, the court has to follow the method shown by the legislature;
Courts can neither exercise jurisdiction nor entrust in them by law; To abide by the principle of Res Judicata i.e., not to open the issues which
have already been decided finally; To pick a mediator to make an award afresh; Substantive rights of the parties shall not be taken away; To
limit a party from taking proceedings in a court of law; and To set apart an order which was valid at the moment of its issuance.