Caveat Cannot Be Sidestepped On Ground Of Urgency Or Identity Ambiguity: Calcutta High Court Quashes Injunction Order Passed Without Notice To Caveator

Calcutta High Court allowed the appeals filed against an ad-interim injunction granted without serving notice to the caveator, holding that failure to honor Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) vitiated the entire injunction order.

The plaintiffs, who were trustees of the Gayatri Chetna Foundation, filed a suit under Section 92 CPC seeking declarations and injunctive reliefs concerning the management of the Trust and its affiliated Academic Institute. During the pendency of the proceedings, the trial court granted an ad-interim injunction allowing the plaintiffs to operate the Trust’s bank account, citing urgency in paying examination fees. The appellants, being founding trustees, challenged this order, arguing that their caveat filed under Section 148A CPC had been wrongfully ignored.

The principal legal issue before the Court was whether an ad-interim injunction could be sustained if granted without serving notice to a caveator.

The High Court strongly rebuked the trial court’s approach. Justice Bhattacharyya observed, "The language of Section 148-A is of the widest amplitude. Sub-section (1) contemplates ‘any person claiming a right to appear before the Court’ as entitled to lodge a caveat. Sub-section (3) mandates that the court shall serve notice to the caveator if any application is filed in the proceeding."

The Court emphasized that the obligation to serve notice was unconditional. "It is not necessary for a caveator to produce her credentials by way of authority or resolution at the stage of lodging the caveat," the Bench held, directly rejecting the trial court's rationale that absence of a formal resolution by the Trust justified non-service.

On the question of urgency, the Court categorically stated, "Urgency cannot defeat the mandatory requirement of serving a caveat. Even if urgency was pleaded, the dates recorded show ample time remained to serve notice before the deadline for payment of examination fees."

Citing its own precedent in Sukumar Roy v. Pratul Kumar Roy, the Court reiterated, "Rules of caveat are meant to give opportunity to contest any claim of injunction before it is made."

The Calcutta High Court ruled that the ad-interim injunction was void due to lack of jurisdiction. It stated, "The learned District Judge-in-Charge exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law in granting ad interim order without directing prior service of notice on the caveator, thus the entire findings in the impugned order are otherwise vitiated."

Significantly, the Court clarified that it would not examine the merits of the injunction application itself, as that would amount to “gross usurpation of the province of the first forum available to the parties." Instead, the Court directed the trial court to freshly consider the injunction application after hearing both sides.

The Court remarked that, "Once a caveat is lodged regarding the subject-matter of a prospective suit or proceeding, it is the mandatory duty of the Court to direct service of notice before passing any order," emphasizing that "There is no legal window of exception based on urgency or identity confusion."

In a stern reminder about the sanctity of procedural safeguards, the Calcutta High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction order and ordered the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the injunction application after giving full opportunity to all parties.

Date of Decision: April 28, 2025