Judgment :- The defendants in O.S. No. 226 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peramathi are the revision petitioners. 2. The petitioners herein filed a suit O.S. No. 165 of 1998 on the file of the same Court for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the possession over the scheduled property. The subject matter of the suit O.S. No. 165 of 1998 is S.F. No. 398/2, having an area of 1.64 acres. The reason for filing the suit was that the defendant, who is a local authority, has threatened the plaintiff to form a metal road along with bund over which he claims absolute title. It is also stated therein that the local authority came to the suit property and attempted to damage the same, which was resisted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also apprehended that the defendant may file a suit against him and therefore, filed a Caveat No. 140 of 1998 on the next day of filing the suit. The suit was filed on 10.9.1998 and the caveat was filed on 11.9.1998. The Caveat was received by the respondent. In the Caveat, apart from saying that the defendant is about to file a suit against the petitioner, he also stated that he is expecting a litigation in S.F. No. 398/2. He, therefore, wanted the notice to be issued to him before any order is passed in the suit proposed to be filed by the respondent. 3. On 23.11.1998, the respondent herein filed O.S. No. 229 of 1998 and the counsel appearing for the respondent made an endorsement “There is no Caveat in respect of subject matter of the suit” and moved an application for injunction. The lower Court accepted the endorsement and passed an interim order of injunction. The fourth petitioner filed a memo on 4.12.1998 informing the lower Court that an interim order has been issued in spite of the caveat and therefore, the same is to be vacated. An objection was raised by the respondent herein stating that the caveat was only in respect of S.F. No. 398/2 and they have filed a suit only in respect of S.F. No. 398/1 and therefore, the lower Court is justified in passing the interim order and the endorsement made by him was also true. An objection was raised by the respondent herein stating that the caveat was only in respect of S.F. No. 398/2 and they have filed a suit only in respect of S.F. No. 398/1 and therefore, the lower Court is justified in passing the interim order and the endorsement made by him was also true. It is further submitted that while the caveat was only in respect of another survey number, there is no necessity for them to give notice in the suit and no ground is made out to vacate the interim order. 4. After hearing both sides, the lower Court by an order dated 10.2.1999, rejected the memo on the ground that the subject matter of both the suits is different and hence, the fourth petitioner cannot insist that he should have been given notice on the interlocutory application before any order is passed. The same is challenged in this revision petition. 5. Notice of motion was ordered and the learned counsel for the respondent herein also entered appearance, After hearing both sides, I feel that the procedure adopted by the lower Court as well as the learned counsel for respondent before the Court below is not proper. 6. Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure was newly inserted as per the Amended Act, 1976 to the Code of Civil Procedure. It reads thus: 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, acknowledgement due, on the person by whom the application has been, or is expected to be, made, under Sub-section (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. (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 caveators expense, with a copy of the application made by him and also with copies of a 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. 7. The object of the provision seems to safeguard the interests of the person against an order that will be passed on the application filed or expected to be filed by the party to the suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted. Such a person lodging a caveat may not be necessary party to such application, but he may be affected by an order that may be passed on that application. The further object of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Order 52 to the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by our High Court provides the procedure for filing caveat. A form was also prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Rule (1) of Order 52 of the Code says that any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of an application which is expected to be made in a suit, appeal, revision or any proceeding instituted or about to be instituted in a Court to which the Code applies, may lodge a caveat in the Court. The caveat shall be in the form prescribed in Appendix Dl and the same shall be accompanied by as many copies of the notice of caveat as will be required to be served on the applicant or applicants the Court fees prescribed for the caVeat and the fees prescribed for service of such notice of caveat. 9. The caveat shall be in the form prescribed in Appendix Dl and the same shall be accompanied by as many copies of the notice of caveat as will be required to be served on the applicant or applicants the Court fees prescribed for the caVeat and the fees prescribed for service of such notice of caveat. 9. Rule (2) of Order 52 of the Code provides that every Court shall maintain register hereafter called the Register of Caveats containing the following particulars. 1. Serial Number 2. Date of presentation of caveat 3. Date upto which the caveat will remain in force. 4. Name and address of caveator 5. Address for service of the caveator within the jurisdiction of the Court and various other factors. 10. It also says that as soon as a person lodges a caveat as provided in Rule 1 above, an entry shall be made in the Register of Caveats in the presence of the Caveator himself or his pleader, who shall sign and register aforesaid. 11. Rule (4) of Order 52 of the Code says that when a person makes an application for an interlocutory order in a suit, appeal, revision or any order proceeding, he shall look into the Register of Caveats and make an endorsement in the application as to whether or not caveat has been entered with respect to his application as verified from the Register of Caveats. 12. Rules 5 to 8 are not necessary and hence, the same are not considered. Appendix Dl is a form of caveat. The same reads thus: “In the Court of Application/Petition No. of 19 in No. of 19 caveator versus applicant/petitioner or expected applicant or petitioner. The address of the caveator for service of notice within the jurisdiction of this Court is The address of the applicant/petitioner or expected applicant/petitioner for service is Let nothing be done in the above maker without notice to the caveator. The caveator abovenamed undertakes to forthwith serve a notice of caveat by registered post with acknowledgement due on the applicant petitioner or expected applicant/petitioner and file proof of such service Dated. CAVEATOR Counsel for caveator- TN Govt. Gaz., 6.8.1980, pt. III S. 2. p. 202”. 13. The caveator abovenamed undertakes to forthwith serve a notice of caveat by registered post with acknowledgement due on the applicant petitioner or expected applicant/petitioner and file proof of such service Dated. CAVEATOR Counsel for caveator- TN Govt. Gaz., 6.8.1980, pt. III S. 2. p. 202”. 13. A further reading of rules and form of caveat makes it clear that it is not a subject matter of the suit that has to be considered, but the Court is expected to only see whether the caveat is filed and whether the suit has been filed by the respondent in the caveat against the person mentioned in the caveat application. 14. The only ingredient that is required for the caveat is stated in the decision reported in the case of Nirmal Chandra v. Girindra Narayanan ( AIR 1978 Cal. 492 ). It was held thus: “The term ‘caveat’ is very common in testamentary proceedings. A caveat is a caution or warning giving notice to the Court not to issue any grant or take any step without notice being given to the party lodging the caveat. It is a precautionary measure taken against the grant of probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, by the person lodging the caveat. The provision for lodging a caveat in a testamentary proceeding is contained in S. 284 of the Indian Succession Act. Persons, who have some interest in the estate of the deceased are entitled to enter caveats under S. 284. The object of the introduction of the provision for lodging a caveat in the CPC seems to be safeguard the interest of a person against an order that may be passed on an application filed or expected to be filed by a party in a suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted. Such a person lodging a caveat may not be a necessary party to such an application, but he may be affected by an order that may be passed on such an application. Further, another object behind the provision of S. 148A is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. A person, against whom an order is passed on an application in a suit or proceeding to which he is not a party, has to take resort to legal proceedings for the purpose of getting rid of the order. Further, another object behind the provision of S. 148A is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. A person, against whom an order is passed on an application in a suit or proceeding to which he is not a party, has to take resort to legal proceedings for the purpose of getting rid of the order. The application referred to in Sub-section (1) of S. 148A must be a substantive application and the person who may be affected by an order that may be passed on such application may file the caveat for the purpose of opposing the application. Unlike the Indian Succession Act, no form of a caveat has been prescribed by the said amendment Act while it introduced S. 148A in the CPC. In the absence of such a form, it may be in the shape of a petition in which the caveator has to specify the nature of the application which is expected to be made or has been made and also his right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application. Under Sub-section (2) of S. 148A, the Caveator has also to serve a notice of application has been, or is expected to be, made under Sub-section (1). It follows, therefore, that in the caveat the name of the person who is expected to file or has filed the application, the nature of the application and the right under which the person lodging the caveat claims to appear before the Court have to be stated.” 15. In the case of Reserve Bank of India Employees Association and another ( AIR 1981 A.P. 246 ) also, this question was considered. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, their Lordships accepted the meaning of caveat as stated in Whartons Law Lexicon. It is stated that in Scotland any one who expects certain proceedings to be taken by another, may lodge with the clerk of the Court a ‘caveat’. He is then entitled to be informed by the Clerk, if and when proceedings are taken. A caveat is an entry made in the books of the offices of the Registry or Court to prevent a certain step being taken without previous notice to the person entering the caveat, who is called the caveator. 16. He is then entitled to be informed by the Clerk, if and when proceedings are taken. A caveat is an entry made in the books of the offices of the Registry or Court to prevent a certain step being taken without previous notice to the person entering the caveat, who is called the caveator. 16. From the meaning of caveat, it is clear that a person informs the Court that the suit is expected to be filed and if the respondent also files a suit as stated therein, notice as per Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be given to the caveator. Alter notice to the caveator on the suit or interlocutory application, the Court will have to decide whether the subject matter is same or not and thereafter pass an order on the interlocutory application. If the Court ultimately holds that the caveator is not interested in the subject matter, it is competent to pass an interim order and thereafter, reject the caveat itself. Mere making an endorsement by the counsel that there is no caveat in respect of the subject matter and on that basis, refusal to serve a copy on the caveator are not proper. The Court is also duty bound to verify an endorsement from the Registry and mere reliance on the endorsement of the counsel is also not correct. From the rules as well as from the form, it is clear that the subject matter of the suit is not a matter to be stated in the caveat. Whether the proposed suit is filed by a person mentioned in the caveat is the only material factor that has to be stated in the caveat application. 17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioners, at the time of filing the caveat, the person is only apprehending a suit. If it is a suit already pending, there would have been some importance for the submission regarding the subject matter. But if the suit is proposed to be filed, the subject matter cannot be stated and the same also cannot be given importance, even if it is stated. 18. The lower Court accepted the endorsement of the counsel and rejected the memo filed by the fourth petitioner. The order is not correct and the same is set aside. But if the suit is proposed to be filed, the subject matter cannot be stated and the same also cannot be given importance, even if it is stated. 18. The lower Court accepted the endorsement of the counsel and rejected the memo filed by the fourth petitioner. The order is not correct and the same is set aside. I direct the lower Court to pass final orders on the interim application within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to this Court. Since I have held that the endorsement of the counsel is not proper and the same amounts to misrepresentation, the Court may also consider as to whether it should proceed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 19. The revision petition is allowed. No costs.