Judgment :- 1. Petitioner, who is the third defendant in a suit for partition, has filed an appeal before the District Court against the final decree passed in the suit. He also filed an interlocutory application for stay of execution of the final decree. Learned District Judge on admission of appeal granted an ex parte order of interim stay, but vacated the stay later, as per the impugned order, when the plaintiffs-respondents entered appearance and opposed the application. The learned District Judge dismissed the application for stay mainly on the ground that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the court that a caveat has been lodged by the plaintiffs-respondents in the District Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has never received a notice from the caveators and that is the reason why be could not bring it to the notice of the court. Counsel also contended that failure of the party to inform the court of the caveat is no ground to dismiss the application, if it is otherwise allowable on merits. At any rate, the court before which the caveat was lodged failed to take note of it for no fault of the petitioner, according to the counsel. 3. S.148 A of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the procedure regarding lodging of caveats. The said provision was inserted in the Code by Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976. It came into force on 1-5-1977. It is a new innovative measure in the direction of prevention of miscarriage of justice in hearing only side of a dispute. The ideal petition it is pass judicial orders after hearing both sides in a dispute. Bat the exigency of a situation may warrant passing of emergent orders to prevent serious consequences or to protect the subject-matter or otherwise to safeguard the interest of justice. In such emergency, court may find it inexpedient to wait for appearance of the opposite party after service of notice on him. So interim orders are passed in such circumstances. Caveat proceedings are intended to minimise hardships to such opposite party who could give advance intimation to court that be would be available for being heard before passing any interim order against him. Provision for lodging caveats thus helps in the administration of justice in a great measure. So interim orders are passed in such circumstances. Caveat proceedings are intended to minimise hardships to such opposite party who could give advance intimation to court that be would be available for being heard before passing any interim order against him. Provision for lodging caveats thus helps in the administration of justice in a great measure. Such provision, therefore, should not be allowed to get scuttled or stultified. 4. S.148 A enables a person who claims a right to appear before a court on the hearing of an application (which is expected to be made) to lodge a caveat in that court. Sub-s. (2) says that a caveator (the person who lodges the caveat) shall serve a notice on the person who is expected to make an application. The sub-section enjoins that such notice shall be served by registered post with acknowledgment due. No other mode is prescribed for service of such notice. Sub-s. (3) says that the court shall serve a notice of the application, when filed, on the caveator. No particular mode of service is prescribed at that stage and so the court can serve such notice in such manner as other notices are served by court, A caveat will remain in force only until the expiry of 90 days from the date of lodging of a caveat unless in the meantime the expected application is made before the court. Thus, a postal acknowledgment receipt is prima facie evidence that the caveator has served a notice of the caveat on the person by whom the application is expected to be made. A Postal receipt obtained on registration may, at the most, show that the caveator has sent the notice by registered post. There may be a presumption of service with such a postal receipt but such presumptions are usable in other areas. Postal receipt is not evidence of service of the notice by a caveator. As sub-s.(3) enjoins on the court to serve a notice of the application filed (which was expected to be filed when the caveat was lodged) on the caveator, there would be little chance of the caveator failing to know about the filing of the application, except on account of laches on the part of the office of the court. As sub-s.(3) enjoins on the court to serve a notice of the application filed (which was expected to be filed when the caveat was lodged) on the caveator, there would be little chance of the caveator failing to know about the filing of the application, except on account of laches on the part of the office of the court. In order to facilitate prompt and unfailing service of such notice by court, it is desirable that the office of the court should maintain a register for the caveates lodged. Every application filed must be counter-checked with the entries in such a register ever a period of three months, in order to verify whether any caveat has been lodged in respect of such an application. If it is found, the office shall bring it to the notice of the Presiding Officer concerned and at the same time take steps to serve the notice as per sub-s. (3). The District Judge should see that such register is properly maintained, because any laches on the part of the office would result in applications being heard without notice to the caveators. In order to prevent such consequences, the court must ensure that the lodging of the caveat is properly followed up. 5. In this case, learned District Judge has not stated whether notice was served on the caveator as provided in sub-s. (3). Obviously the office has not brought it to his notice that a caveat has been lodged. Caveator has not produced the postal acknowledgment receipt, and hence it is not certain that the petitioner had knowledge about the lodging of caveat. Petitioner cannot be blamed for misconduct unless there is positive proof that notice of the caveat has been served on him. There is no such proof. 6. In this case, both sides agree that the appeal itself can be heard and disposed of expeditiously. I, therefore, direct the court below to dispose of the appeal at early as possible and until such disposal, the execution proceedings will remain in abeyance. The revision is disposed of as above.