Thus, a reading of Section 148-A of the C.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that it applies only to a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court. Section 148-A create a sustentative right in the party. It is not a matter of procedure only. It gives a substantive right in relation to the proceedings that are instituted, or that may bo instituted in a Court. The word "Court" has been defined in Section 2(9a) of the Land Reforms Act as "Court means the Court of Munsiff within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situate." The Appellate Authority constituted under the Amendment Act 1986 is not a Court of original jurisdiction or a Court of Appeal within the meaning of the C.P.C. The Appellate Authority has been created by the Land Reforms Act under Section 116A. Therefore, it becomes clear that the Appellate Authority does not amount to a Court within the meaning of the definition of the Court given by the Land Reforms Act or within the meaning of the word 'Court' as defined by the C.P.C. Therefore, Section 148-A of the C.P.C. does not apply to the proceedings instituted or to be instituted before the Appellate Authority. {Para 2}
Therefore, the Appellate Authority, by virtue of Section 107 C.P.C. read with Section 113 of the Land Reforms Act, cannot entertain a caveat as defined by Section 148-A of the C.P.C. Section 148-A doesn't give a right to the Court to receive the caveat, but it gives a right to the party to file a caveat. There is nothing in the Land Reforms Act, even as amended by Act No. 19/86 to show that the party has got a right to file caveat. This is a special right given to the party by the C.P.C. in relation to the proceedings instituted or to be instituted in a Court. This is an exceptional right given to the party in relation to the proceedings filed or to be filed in a Court. Such an exceptional right given to a party by Section 148-A of the C.P.C. in relation to suits or appeals or proceedings instituted or to be instituted in a Court, is not available to a litigant in respect of the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act.
6. As already stated above, Sub-section (3) speaks about the State Government making Rules for conferment of such other powers on the Appellate Authority as may be considered necessary or to regulate the practice and procedure of the Appellate Authority and the conduct of its business. It does not contemplate anything like giving an additional right to the litigant file a caveat. As already indicated above, it is only a special right given to the litigant to file a caveat. Such a right does not amount to conferment of the powers on the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the said argument also stands rejected. Under these circumstances, his argument that the stay order is bad as it has been passed by the Appellate Authority without hearing him even though he had filed a caveat, stands rejected.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C.R.P. No. 3088 of 1986
Decided On: 25.08.1986
Panchakshari Vs. Chairman, Land Tribunal
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.A. Kulkarni, J.
Citation: MANU/KA/0318/1986.
1. This is a revision by respondent-2 against the order dated 9-7-1986 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hassan, in Appeal No. 11/86-87, granting the stay.
2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that his client had filed a caveat before the Appellate Authority, Hassan, and that, as he was not heard before the grant of stay, the Stay was illegal, ineffective and void ab initio. According to him, Section 148-A of the C.P.C. relating the to the caveat applies to the proceedings in the Appellate Authority constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 148-A of C.P.C. reads as:
"148-A. Right to lodge a caveat:
(1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.
(2) Where a caveat has been lodged under Sub-section (1), the person by whom the caveat has been lodged (hereinafter referred to as the caveator) shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post, acknowledgment due, on the person by whom the application has been, or is expected to be made under subsection (1).
(3) Where, after a caveat has been lodged under Sub section (1) any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator.
(4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the caveator, at the caveator's expense, with a copy of the application made by him and also with copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be, filed by him in support of the application.
(5) Where a caveat has been lodged under Sub-section (1), such caveat shall not remain in force after the expiry of ninety days from the date on which it was lodged unless the application referred to in Sub-section (1) has been made before the expiry of the said period."
Thus, a reading of Section 148-A of the C.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that it applies only to a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court. Section 148-A create a sustentative right in the party. It is not a matter of procedure only. It gives a substantive right in relation to the proceedings that are instituted, or that may bo instituted in a Court. The word "Court" has been defined in Section 2(9a) of the Land Reforms Act as "Court means the Court of Munsiff within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situate." The Appellate Authority constituted under the Amendment Act 1986 is not a Court of original jurisdiction or a Court of Appeal within the meaning of the C.P.C. The Appellate Authority has been created by the Land Reforms Act under Section 116A. Therefore, it becomes clear that the Appellate Authority does not amount to a Court within the meaning of the definition of the Court given by the Land Reforms Act or within the meaning of the word 'Court' as defined by the C.P.C. Therefore, Section 148-A of the C.P.C. does not apply to the proceedings instituted or to be instituted before the Appellate Authority.
3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners drew my attention to the amended Section 113 of the Land Reforms Act. Section 113, as it stands amended, reads as:
"(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) shall be applicable in respect of all applications and proceedings under this Act before the Court.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall, for the purposes of the disposal of the appeals before it, have the same powers as are vested in a Court of Appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908), except the following, namely:
(a) power of reminding the appeal to the Tribunal, either for recording fresh decision or for recording further evidence or for any other purpose ;
(b) power of referring any point or points for decision to the Tribunal ;
(c) such other matters as may be prescribed ;
(3) The State Government, may make rules for:
(a) conferment of such other powers on the Appellate Authority as may be considered necessary ;
(b) regulating the practice and procedure of the Appellate Authority and the conduct of its business."
4. Section 107 of the C.P.C. reads as:
"107. Powers of Appellate Court-(1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an appellate Court shall have power-
(a) to determine a case finally ;
(b) to remand a case ;
(c) to frame issues and refer them for trial ;
(d) to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.
(2) Subject as aforesaid, the appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein."
Section 113(2)(a) to (c) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act takes away some of the powers available to the appellate Court. Therefore, the Appellate Authority, by virtue of Section 107 C.P.C. read with Section 113 of the Land Reforms Act, cannot entertain a caveat as defined by Section 148-A of the C.P.C. Section 148-A doesn't give a right to the Court to receive the caveat, but it gives a right to the party to file a caveat. There is nothing in the Land Reforms Act, even as amended by Act No. 19/86 to show that the party has got a right to file caveat. This is a special right given to the party by the C.P.C. in relation to the proceedings instituted or to be instituted in a Court. This is an exceptional right given to the party in relation to the proceedings filed or to be filed in a Court. Such an exceptional right given to a party by Section 148-A of the C.P.C. in relation to suits or appeals or proceedings instituted or to be instituted in a Court, is not available to a litigant in respect of the proceedings under the Land Reforms Act.
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Sub-section (3) of Section 113 of the Land Reforms Act contemplated that the State Government, may make Rules for (a) conferment of such other powers on the Appellate Authority as may be considered necessary ; and (b) regulating the practice and procedure of the Appellate Authority and the conduct of its business. According to him, no such Rules as contemplated by Sub-section (3) of Section 113, have been framed by the Government. Merely because the Rules as contemplated by Sub-section (3) are not framed by the Government, it does not make Section 113, as it stands amended, ineffective. Sub-section (3) is meant to confer further powers on the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the said argument does not appeal to me in the least.
6. As already stated above, Sub-section (3) speaks about the State Government making Rules for conferment of such other powers on the Appellate Authority as may be considered necessary or to regulate the practice and procedure of the Appellate Authority and the conduct of its business. It does not contemplate anything like giving an additional right to the litigant file a caveat. As already indicated above, it is only a special right given to the litigant to file a caveat. Such a right does not amount to conferment of the powers on the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the said argument also stands rejected. Under these circumstances, his argument that the stay order is bad as it has been passed by the Appellate Authority without hearing him even though he had filed a caveat, stands rejected. On merits also, he has no case at present. It is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the application filed by the revision petitioner, if any, for vacating the stay. The revision is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment