Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 65 (AP)

Nagireddy Tulasi Katyayini v. Bathina Sujatha

2025-01-07

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The copy of the C.R.P., was not served to the learned Counsel for the respondent/caveator. Such objection was raised, upon which vide order dated 20.12.2024 Registry was directed to submit the report, that once there was caveat, how could the CRP be numbered without serving the copies of the petition to the caveator. 2. The Registry submitted a report as follow : "It is respectfully submitted the learned Counsel for the petitioner filed CRP (SR) without copy of the Caveat petition and did not make any endorsement regarding service to the other side Counsel. And the Counsel for the petitioner paid batta at the time of filing the above CRP (SR). Hence, the Registry has processed the CRP and numbered and posted without having the knowledge about the caveat petition. After numbering the CRP No.3145 of 2024 was sent to CRP Section, and the CRP Section has put up the caveat in the bundle". 3. Not being satisfied with the office report by order dated 27.12.2024, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to submit the report "clearly pointing out the procedure for filing the Caveat; as also its intimation to CRP Section and to Registry. It shall be indicated if the caveat is not reported to the Registry, while processing the CRP". 4. The Registrar (Judicial) has submitted a detailed report dated 02.01.2025, relevant portion, of which reads as under : "S.O.215-5 : Caveats : Soon after the Cases are received from Scrutiny Officers, it shall be verified whether the Departments mentioned in the Cases are as per the existing provisions, and then, the Cases be handed over to the Caveats Seat, for verification. The Assistant, who looks after Caveats, as soon as he receives them daily from the Scrutiny Officers in the evening, shall make necessary entries in the Caveats Register (J.R.11) to be maintained, District-wise. Immediately after receipt of fresh Cases during the day, the Caveats Assistant has to verify each and every Case and find out whether any Caveats are pending in respect of Case on hand from the Caveats Register (J.R.11). In case, any Caveat entry is found in the concerned Caveat Register (J.R.11), he has to make necessary entries with regard to the particulars of such fresh Cases in the Caveat Register (J.R.11) as well as in the concerned Case Ledgers (J.R.45). In case, any Caveat entry is found in the concerned Caveat Register (J.R.11), he has to make necessary entries with regard to the particulars of such fresh Cases in the Caveat Register (J.R.11) as well as in the concerned Case Ledgers (J.R.45). He shall, then, put up the Caveat in the said Case and feed the Name of the Counsel who filed the Caveat in the computer. In Case of non-availability of the Caveat, he has to endorse on the docket of such Cases about the non-availability of the Caveat as "No Caveat". It is also his duty to verify the expiry of "time limit", as envisaged in Section 148-A C.P.C. and he has to make necessary entries in the Caveat Register (J.R.11) to that effect. Then, the Cases will pass on for recording Case particulars. Register of Caveats (District-Wise) (J.R.11) S.R. No. Date of presentation Date of filing Appellant/ Respondents Lower Court details No of the Appeal (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) The Cases, in which Lunch Motion permissions are obtained, shall be filed by 11.30 a.m., after obtaining the initials from the Deputy Registrar concerned for being placed before the Hon'ble Court by 02.15 p.m., on the same day. Papers filed after 11.30 a.m., will be treated as "Motions" and, if found in order, will be posted the next working day. All Cases with Motion letters will be received by the Scrutiny Officers from 10.30 a.m., to 01.30 p.m., and Cases filed with Motion letters after 02.00 p.m., will not be listed in the next day's Motion List. (Vide Circular No.26/97/Judl. dated 18.11.1997). All Lunch Motion Cases should be placed before the Registrar (Judl.) before sending them to the concerned Courts (if any doubt is entertained by the Section). (Vide Circular No.13/97-Judl. Dt.?-1997)." 5. As per the report, a caveat petition was filed at the filing counter and after giving SR number, it was sent to the New Filing Section, where Caveat petition was scrutinized and it was sent to CRP Section. At the CRP section, the Assistant concerned would make an entry in the Register, exclusively earmarked for caveat and watch for a period of 90 days. As per the report, whenever fresh CRP is filed and numbered, the CRP clerks receive the CRP and verify the Caveat Register as to whether any caveat is filed in connection with the property, shown in the CRP. As per the report, whenever fresh CRP is filed and numbered, the CRP clerks receive the CRP and verify the Caveat Register as to whether any caveat is filed in connection with the property, shown in the CRP. In the present case, as per the report, after verification of the Caveat Register, it was found that a Caveat was pending in connection with the CRP. The Clerk at CRP Section, attached the Caveat Petition with the CRP and fed the name of the Counsel for the caveator in the system and endorsed over CRP that caveat was filed with SR No.4055 of 2024. Later, the CRP alongwith caveat petition was sent to posting section for listing the CRP before the Court. The name of Sri P. Vivek, learned Counsel for the caveat petitioner has been reflected in the cause list. Further, as per the report there is no existing procedure before numbering the CRP to ascertain as to whether any caveat is pending or not. However, if the petitioner files a copy of served caveat, the scrutiny section would insist the petitioner that the copy of the CRP notice be served on the caveator/respondent. In the present CRP, "the petitioner did not get mentioned that caveat petition was served on him. The scrutiny officials were therefore not aware as to whether caveat was filed or not". 6. 11. Section 148-A of Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C.) reads as under : [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 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.] 7. A bare reading of Section 148-A C.P.C., shows that any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of an application, expected to be made or has been made in a Suit or proceeding instituted or about to be instituted, in a Court, may lodge a Caveat for such appearance and hearing of the application before the Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 148-A provides that if any application is filed in any Suit or proceeding, after the caveat has been lodged, the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator. Section 148-A(4) also cast duty on the applicant, who has been served with a notice of caveat, to forthwith furnish copy of the application with complete documents filed in support of the application to the caveator. 8. Section 148-A, C.P.C., thus provides for an opportunity of hearing to any person claiming such right to defend himself before passing of any order, from which he might be affected, and to ensure it, where the person files caveat, the Court has to serve a notice of the application on the caveator, which is a duty cast upon the Court. The duty cast under sub-section (3) is on the Court where caveat has been lodged and the duty cast under sub-section (4) is on the applicant, filing application in a Court, who has been served with a notice of caveat. 9. In Chandrajit and another v. Smt. Ganeshiya and others, 1987 SCC Online All. 444 = AIR 1987 All. The duty cast under sub-section (3) is on the Court where caveat has been lodged and the duty cast under sub-section (4) is on the applicant, filing application in a Court, who has been served with a notice of caveat. 9. In Chandrajit and another v. Smt. Ganeshiya and others, 1987 SCC Online All. 444 = AIR 1987 All. 360 , the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court observed that the object of the introduction of Section 148-A CPC for Caveat in the Court is to afford an opportunity of hearing a person as against whom a proceeding is likely to be instituted. A caveat, it was observed, is only an intimation to a Judge or officer notifying that the opposite party be given an opportunity to be heard before any action is taken on the application or proceeding initiated by the other side. It is a request which, if attended to, will help the Court in doing justice in between the parties. It was also held that the caveats would be entitled to be entertained at the time an appeal is submitted for reporting. The Stamp Reporter will make a note, if the caveat has already been filed before him, about the same. 10. In S.S. Barathokey v. Chairman, U.P. Seed and Tarai Development Corporation Limited and another, 1993 (11) LCD 486, where, a caveat was filed but notice of the writ petition was not served upon the caveator's Counsel before filing the writ petition and an ex-parte interim order was passed, upon the application for recall of that order on the very ground of no service of notice of the writ petition inspite of caveat, it was held that the ex-parte interim order without hearing the caveator's Counsel deserved to be recalled and the opposite parties were entitled to be given a right of hearing on the application for interim relief. 11. Paragraphs 11 to 15 of S.S. Barathokey's case (supra), are as under : "11. In the case of G.C. Siddalingappa v. G.C. Veeranna, AIR 1981 Kar. 11. Paragraphs 11 to 15 of S.S. Barathokey's case (supra), are as under : "11. In the case of G.C. Siddalingappa v. G.C. Veeranna, AIR 1981 Kar. 242 , after considering the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure that Court came to the conclusion that the provision regarding service of notice as contained in sub-section (3) is mandatory and non-compliance with it defeats the very object of introducing Section 148-A. Consequently it follows that the breach of sub-section (3) vitiates the order passed thereof. Once a caveat is filed, it is a condition precedent for passing an interim order to serve a notice of the application on the caveator who is going to be affected by the interim order. Once a caveat is filed it becomes the duty of the Stamp Reporter to report that such and such Counsel for the opposite parties or one of the opposite parties has filed a caveat and it becomes the duty of the Court to hear that Counsel before an interim order is passed in the case. 12. This question was also raised for consideration in the case of Pashupati Nath Arora v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur and others, AIR 1983 Raj. 191 . In that case the provisions of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rajasthan High Court Rules, (Rule 159), were interpreted. In that case the High Court held that in order to make the caveat effective, the analogy of provisions 148-A, CPC can be applied to the caveats which are filed before the Court. 13. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nainital Bank Limited v. Munsif, Nainital and others, 1992 (1) LDR 70, has held that an interim order which has been passed in absence of a party who has put in appearance, is to be recalled. In that case also the power had been filed in the Court by the Counsel for the opposite parties. The filing of caveat in the Court is equivalent to filing of power on behalf of opposite parties and once it is known that a caveat has been filed the office should report this fact. 14. In that case also the power had been filed in the Court by the Counsel for the opposite parties. The filing of caveat in the Court is equivalent to filing of power on behalf of opposite parties and once it is known that a caveat has been filed the office should report this fact. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631 , has observed in Para 6 as under : "It is, therefore, quite clear that if there was an error, the Court and its officers largely contributed to it. It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant and take care but where a litigant goes to Court and asks for the assistance of the Court so that his obligations under a decree might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent on the Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own devices, to ensure that the correct information is furnished. If the Court in supplying the information makes a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does not altogether cease, is atleast shared by the Court. If the litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim : "Actus curiae neminem gravabit." 15. Thus from the perusal of these cases and the rules of the Courts and Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure it becomes quite apparent that in the present case when a caveat had already been filed it was the duty of the Stamp Reporter to make an endorsement to this effect on the writ petition. In the present case it was not the fault of the opposite parties. In the present case it was not the fault of the opposite parties. At the same time it was also the duty of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to have served the notice of the writ petition before filing it in the Court because Sri D.P. Singh, Advocate was the Standing Counsel of the U.P. Seeds and Tarai Development Corporation, the opposite party in the present case. As the petitioner did not serve copy of the writ petition on the Counsel for the opposite parties the ex parte interim order passed in the present case is liable to be recalled and the matter to be heard again. In this case the ex parte interim order has been passed by the Court on the fault of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for not serving Sri D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite parties who was also their Standing Counsel. The office of the Stamp Reporter is also to be blamed equally for not reporting about the filing of the caveat in the above case. It is a serious matter which requires consideration. The Stamp Reporter should be vigilant while making reports and see whether a caveat has been filed by the other party while reporting on the writ petitions. Dereliction of duty on the part of the Stamp Reporter and his office has resulted in harassment of the parties and wastage of precious time of the Court"." 12. In Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal and another v. Karunesh Jaiswal and others, 2021 SCC Online All. 655, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on the subject observed and held that it is the duty of the Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the caveator. Paras 27 to 30 and 33 are as under : "27. In Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal and another v. Karunesh Jaiswal and others, 2021 SCC Online All. 655, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on the subject observed and held that it is the duty of the Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the caveator. Paras 27 to 30 and 33 are as under : "27. In S.S. Barathokey v. Chairman, U.P. Seed and Tarai Development Corporation Limited and another, 1993 (11) LCD 486, this Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631 , in which it was held that "there is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim : "Actus curiae neminem gravabit.". 28. In Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, held that once a caveat is filed, it shall always be incumbent upon the Stamp Reporter to verify the facts with regard to filing of the caveat, go throughout the record not only on the basis of names of the parties but also on the basis of case number of regular suit, the date of order passed by the subordinate Courts/Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities, or other identifying numbers, if any. It also referred that no one should suffer for the fault of the Court as any act of the Court of law shall prejudice no man in the basic concept of administration of justice. 29. In Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh's case (supra), where also there was negligence on the part of the Stamp Reporter, who failed to make an endorsement with regard to filing of the caveat, such slackness or negligence on the part of the Stamp Reporter or Registry of the Court was considered as amounting to negligence on the part of the Court. 30. In the case of Raj Bahadur's case (supra), this Court held that "the provisions for giving a notice or for providing a copy of the application and document to the caveator are in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 30. In the case of Raj Bahadur's case (supra), this Court held that "the provisions for giving a notice or for providing a copy of the application and document to the caveator are in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Any violation thereof renders any judicial process adopted by any authority, specially by a judicial authority, nugatory. The relevant part of Raj Bahadur's case (supra), reads as under : "The provisions for lodging a caveat are found in Section 148-A of the C.P.C. Sub-section (3) of Section 148-A specifically provides that where, after a caveat has been lodged under sub-section (1), if any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator. Sub-section (4) casts a duty on the applicant to forthwith furnish a copy of the application to the caveator and also copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be, filed by the applicant in support of the application. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 148-A of the C.P.C., are quoted below : "(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." Sub-section (3) of Section 148-A, CPC thus makes it mandatory for the Court to serve a notice on the caveator. Right to lodge caveat under Section 148-A of the C.P.C., has been conferred on a person who apprehends or expects any impending legal action against him. The provisions for giving a notice or for providing a copy of the application and document to the caveator are in conformity with the principle of natural justice. Any violation thereof renders any judicial process adopted by any authority, specially by a judicial authority, nugatory." x x x x x 33. The provisions for giving a notice or for providing a copy of the application and document to the caveator are in conformity with the principle of natural justice. Any violation thereof renders any judicial process adopted by any authority, specially by a judicial authority, nugatory." x x x x x 33. It is the right of the caveator of being heard if a caveat is filed and it is the duty of the Court to afford him opportunity of hearing and not passing any order without affording opportunity of hearing to the caveator which needs be protected it being a right recognized by the statute, even if there is no fault on the part of the applicant. If due to some negligence, mistake or otherwise of the Registry/Munsarim, caveat is not reported and without affording opportunity of hearing order is passed, the order shall be liable to be recalled and the caveator would be entitled to be restored to the position of hearing of the application afresh, on the principle that an act of Court of law, in administration of justice should prejudice no man." 13. In Reserve Bank of India Employees Association v. The Reserve Bank of India, 1981 SCC Online AP 31, this Court held that sub-section (1) of Section 148-A provides for the lodging of a caveat in a suit or proceeding already instituted or about to be instituted in a Court by any person. Under sub-section (2) of Section 148-A once a party is admitted to the status of a caveator he is clothed with certain rights and duties and it becomes his duty to serve a notice of the caveat lodged by him by registered post on the person or persons by whom the application against the caveator was going to be moved. This Court further observed that Section 148-A divides and distributes the duties of the applicants of the application and the Court between the two sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 148-A. Under sub-section (4) the plaintiffs-applicants should furnish the caveators a copy of the application made by the applicants and also copies of papers and documents on which they are about to rely. Under sub-section (3) of Section 148-A. Under that sub-section the Court is required to serve 'a notice of application on the caveator. Under sub-section (3) of Section 148-A. Under that sub-section the Court is required to serve 'a notice of application on the caveator. It was held that the duty of the Court under sub-section (3) was in addition to the other part assigned to the other parties. It was held that furnishing of copies of the documents by the plaintiffs to the caveator in informing them of the date of their moving their interlocutory application could not be taken as acts constituting compliance with the specific duty assigned to the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 148-A. The duty of the applicants under sub-section (4) was different and distinct from the duty of the Court under sub-section (3) of Section 148-A CPC. 14. In Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal's case (supra), in consideration of the importance of the caveat and the opportunity to be afforded to the caveator or his Counsel, the Allahabad High Court, in the interest of proper administration of justice issued certain directions, though in respect of Civil Court, which deserves mention as in Para 35 of Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal's case (supra), which read as under : "35. Before, concluding, this Court deems it appropriate as also a duty in the interest of proper administration of justice to issue following directions as well : (1) In every Civil Court, Munsarim is the Chief Ministerial Officer. He is appointed to receive plaints or other papers under the Code and to see that the actual date of presentation is entered upon the plaint, memorandum of appeal, cross-objection or any other paper filed and also upon the labels on such papers. (2) It shall be incumbent as also the duty upon the Munsarim of the Court concerned to verify the facts on the basis of case number of regular suit, date of the order passed by the subordinate Court, the name of the parties or other identifying numbers, if any with regard to the filing of a caveat. (3) When an application/plaint or/and is filed in Civil Court the Munsarim of that Court shall mandatorily make an endorsement on such plaint/application, if any caveat has been filed or not. (4) If caveat has been filed the same shall be reported without any failure. (3) When an application/plaint or/and is filed in Civil Court the Munsarim of that Court shall mandatorily make an endorsement on such plaint/application, if any caveat has been filed or not. (4) If caveat has been filed the same shall be reported without any failure. (5) If a plaint/application is filed in one Court but is transferred to another Court, for any reason either at the time of institution or thereafter, the Munsarim of the transferee Court shall also ensure if there is reporting of the caveat or not and in the absence of any such reporting the Munsarim of the transferee Court, shall submit his report to the transferee Court about the caveat and if required, report to that affect shall also be asked from the Munsarim of the Court from where the case has been received on transfer, which report shall be submitted by the Munsarim of the Court from where the file has been received from transfer without any delay so that in cases of urgency, the disposal of the application may not be unnecessarily delayed. (6) Any slackness, negligence or mistake on the part of the Munsarim of the Court concerned for any reason whatsoever would amount to interference in the administration of justice, rendering him liable for appropriate action being taken in addition to the disciplinary proceedings. (7) The above directions are in addition to any other provision or directions etc., if exist, on the above subject. (8) Learned District Judges of the District Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall ensure that the caveat lodged is reported and is not missed by any slackness or negligence or mistake or otherwise on the part of the Munsarim and to ensure it necessary order shall be issued as per the above directions." 15. The procedure, as per the report of the Registrar (Judicial), for lodging a caveat appears to be that it is presented at the filing counter and after giving S.R number, it is sent to the new filing section where the caveat is scrutinised and then sent to the concerned Section, in the present case to CRP Section. At the CRP Section, as in the present case, the Assistant makes an entry in the register maintained exclusively for caveats and when the CRP is filed at the filing section, it is scrutinized and numbered. At the CRP Section, as in the present case, the Assistant makes an entry in the register maintained exclusively for caveats and when the CRP is filed at the filing section, it is scrutinized and numbered. Then CRP is sent to the CRP Section where the clerk concerned would verify from the caveat register, if there is any caveat filed with respect to that CRP. If the caveat is filed, the caveat would be attached/annexed to the CRP. Then, after feeding the name of the Counsel for the caveator in the system, the CRP is sent to the Posting Section for listing of the CRP before the Court. 16. The aforesaid procedure makes one thing evident that, at no point of time, the Counsel for the caveator is informed about filing of the CRP, nor the Counsel for the petitioner is asked to serve the copy of the petition so filed on the Counsel for the caveator/respondent. It is only when the petition is listed before the Court, that the caveator's Counsel would know about filing of the petition. What happened then, which this Court is frequently experiencing, is that, being informed that the copy of the petition was not served, time is to be granted with direction to serve the copy. This unnecessarily consumes the Court's time at the cost of deciding a case or passing an effective order on merits of a case. It also in money case may cause delay in administration of justice to the party appreciating the Court; may be of urgent notice. 17. The report of the Registrar (Judicial), tries to highlight that it was the duty of the petitioner's Counsel of the civil revision petition to serve the copy of the petition on the caveator Counsel, which was not served though the postal receipt was filed by the caveator in the caveat petition to show that the caveat was sent to the petitioner in the civil revision petition, though there was no document to establish that the caveat was actually served on the petitioner or not. What the report emphasises is that the petitioners' Counsel should have mentioned about receipt of caveat notice and shall have served the copy on caveator's Counsel. In the view of this Court, this is only one aspect as under Section 148-A(4). What the report emphasises is that the petitioners' Counsel should have mentioned about receipt of caveat notice and shall have served the copy on caveator's Counsel. In the view of this Court, this is only one aspect as under Section 148-A(4). But, the other aspect is equally important, and, that is Section 148-A(3), which is a duty cast on the Court as well. In Reserve Bank of India Employees Association's case (supra), this Court clearly laid down that the duty on the applicant under sub-section (4) is different and distinct from the duty on the Court under sub-section (3) and furnishing of copy by plaintiff to caveator could not be taken as compliance with the duty on the Court. 18. Further, there may also be a situation where the caveator sends notice to the petitioner and before it reaches to the petitioner, the CRP is presented. Though, the caveat is also registered, but then that would not be known to the petitioner or the petitioner's Counsel as by that time petitioner was not in receipt of the caveat. There may be another situation, that, inspite of receiving the caveat notice the petitioner does not bring it to the notice of the Counsel, for some reasons, may be genuine e.g., he might have missed the caveat or might have forgotten or might have considered it not necessary to inform the Counsel or may be otherwise. In such cases also the Counsel for the petitioner, would not know that there is a caveat and consequently he has to serve an advance notice on the Counsel for the respondent/caveator. So, the compliance with Section 148-A(3) and of the principle underlying such provision, by the Court, is of utmost importance. 19. Therefore, in the view of this Court once the caveat is registered and petitioner/applicant presents, the petition in the new filing section, at the first instance, it is desirable that it should be checked then and there, at the time of numbering the petition if there is a caveat or not. If there is a caveat, it should be endorsed on such petition and if the copy has not been served to the caveator or his Counsel the petitioner shall be asked to serve copy to make compliance with sub-sections (3) and (4) before the matter is processed further and sent to the posting section for listing before the Court. 20. If there is a caveat, it should be endorsed on such petition and if the copy has not been served to the caveator or his Counsel the petitioner shall be asked to serve copy to make compliance with sub-sections (3) and (4) before the matter is processed further and sent to the posting section for listing before the Court. 20. Alternatively, even if the same procedure, as is being followed, is to be followed, if the caveat is noted by the CRP Section (or the concerned section like appeal section as the case may be), the file should be sent back to the new filing section with endorsement of caveat to report to the Counsel for the petitioner to serve copy on caveator Counsel. Or even if it is not so sent to the new filing section, from the CRP Section itself, the information be given to the Counsel for the petitioner to serve the copy on the caveator's Counsel, and then to process further for listing, in the posting section, for being placed before the Court. 21. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is therefore directed that he shall ensure that in any fresh case filed i.e., CRP, appeal, etc., in which the caveat is filed, before listing the same before the Court, the notice of such petition etc., is served to the caveator's Counsel with due notice to him. 22. A direction is also issued that any petitioner/appellant/applicant while filing the petition/appeal/CRP etc., shall also state in the petition etc., specifically, in one paragraph, the last one, if such petitioner/appellant/applicant as the case may be, has or has not received the caveat in such matter. 23. The Counsel for the caveator, when offered the copy of the CRP/appeal etc., as the case may be, cannot and shall not refuse to receive the copy but shall receive and acknowledge its receipt. 24. If there is any such refusal or willful avoidance to receive the copy of the petition, the petitioner/appellant's Counsel may make an endorsement to that effect and may also file a memo, alongwith the petition, clearly indicating to whom and when the copy was offered and was refused or avoided. In such a case the Registry shall alongwith such memo or endorsement list the matter before the appropriate Court. 25. In such a case the Registry shall alongwith such memo or endorsement list the matter before the appropriate Court. 25. The above directions are in addition to any other provision or direction etc., existing on the subject of caveat. 26. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar (Judicial), and one copy shall also be sent to the Bar Association of Andhra Pradesh, High Court, Amaravati, for due intimation to the learned members of the Bar. 27. List the matter in the next month.