The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that a caveat filed under the Code of Civil Procedure creates a mandatory duty on the trial court to afford notice before passing any interim order. The judgment underscores that failure to do so renders the order legally defective and requires immediate recall, irrespective of the opposing party’s knowledge or good faith.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose over a title suit concerning immovable property in Baruipur, 24-Parganas (South). The plaintiffs, Ayan Sadhukhan & Ors., filed Title Suit No. 105 of 2026 seeking declaration of title and injunction against the defendants, Panji Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The defendants sought to protect their possession by filing a caveat before the trial court.
Key Facts
- The petitioners filed Caveat No. 1897 of 2025 on 24.12.2025 with the Trial Court, Baruipur.
- On 21.02.2026, the Trial Court passed an ex parte interim order of status quo without issuing notice to the petitioners or considering the caveat.
- The order restrained all parties from altering the nature, character, or possession of the suit property as it stood on 21.02.2026.
- The petitioners became aware of the order on or about 25.02.2026.
- On 27.02.2026, the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking recall of the ex parte order.
- The Trial Court did not hear the recall application on 27.02.2026 but posted it for hearing on 21.04.2026, the same date on which the application for temporary injunction was returnable.
- The Trial Court noted in its order that Caveat No. 1885 of 2025 was recorded on file, but this caveat pertained to a different property and was unrelated to the suit.
- There was no record of Caveat No. 1897 of 2025 being noted by the Sherestadar.
Procedural History
- 24.12.2025: Caveat No. 1897 of 2025 filed by petitioners.
- 21.02.2026: Trial Court passed ex parte interim order of status quo without notice.
- 27.02.2026: Petitioners filed application under Section 151 CPC for recall of the order.
- 27.02.2026: Trial Court posted recall application for hearing on 21.04.2026.
- 01.04.2026: Civil Revisional Jurisdiction petition filed before the Calcutta High Court (C.O. 953 of 2026).
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the filing of a caveat creates a statutory obligation on the court to issue notice before passing any order. They relied on Sukumar Roy & Anr. v. Pratul Kumar Roy (90 CWN 288), which held that when a caveat is brought to the court’s notice, the only lawful course is to recall the ex parte order and rehear the matter on contest.
For the Respondents
The respondents argued that they were unaware of the caveat and had no role in its non-disclosure. They claimed that the ex parte order was granted on a prima facie case and that they should not suffer due to an administrative lapse by the court or the petitioners’ failure to ensure the caveat was properly recorded.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Immediate recall of the ex parte order dated 21.02.2026.
- Direction to the Trial Court to hear the recall application forthwith.
- Direction to the Trial Court to hear the application for injunction in the presence of all parties.
- Expedited disposal of all pending applications within ten days.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court is legally bound to recall an ex parte interim order when it is brought to its notice that a valid caveat had been filed but ignored, and whether the court may postpone such recall to a future date.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Roy argued that Sukumar Roy v. Pratul Kumar Roy established a binding precedent: once a caveat is lodged, the court cannot proceed ex parte. If the court later discovers the caveat was overlooked, the only lawful remedy is immediate recall and rehearing. He emphasized that the judgment did not hinge on mala fide but on procedural infirmity. He further clarified that the error in Sukumar Roy was a mistaken endorsement by the Assistant Registrar, yet the court still held recall mandatory.
For the Respondent
Mr. Bhattacharya contended that the respondents were not at fault for the caveat’s non-recognition. He distinguished Sukumar Roy on the ground that it involved deliberate concealment by the caveators, whereas here, the respondents had no knowledge. He argued that equity should protect parties who act in good faith and obtain orders on prima facie merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Calcutta High Court rejected the respondents’ argument that lack of mala fide excuses procedural non-compliance. The Court held that the duty to heed a caveat is not contingent on the opposing party’s knowledge but on the court’s own obligation under the procedural framework of the CPC.
"The only course open to the learned Judge should have been, when such defect was pointed out, to recall the order forthwith and rehear the matter on contest."
The Court emphasized that the Sukumar Roy precedent was not confined to cases of fraud or concealment. The judgment was grounded in the principle that procedural fairness under Section 151 CPC demands that no party be deprived of an opportunity to be heard once a caveat is on record. The fact that the Sherestadar failed to note Caveat No. 1897 of 2025 does not absolve the court of its duty to act upon discovery of the omission.
The Court further observed that the Trial Court’s decision to postpone the recall application to 21.04.2026 was legally untenable. Delay in recalling an order passed in violation of procedural safeguards undermines the very purpose of the caveat system. The court held that the recall application must be heard immediately, not deferred.
The Court also clarified that the Trial Court must examine whether Caveat No. 1897 of 2025 was validly filed and properly lodged. If so, the injunction application must be heard afresh with all parties present.
The Verdict
The Calcutta High Court allowed the revision. The order dated 21.02.2026 is not set aside, but the Trial Court is directed to hear the recall application filed on 27.02.2026 immediately. The Trial Court must conclude the entire process - including determination of the caveat’s validity and rehearing of the injunction application - within ten days of the filing of the application for putting up the records. The matter shall be heard by the Judge-in-Charge if the regular Judge is unavailable. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caveat Triggers Automatic Notice Obligation
- Practitioners must file caveats in all interim applications where notice is critical.
- Courts cannot defer recall of ex parte orders merely because the opposing party was unaware.
- The burden of ensuring caveat compliance rests on the court, not the caveator.
Procedural Lapses Cannot Be Excused by Good Faith
- Even if the opposing party acted in good faith, an ex parte order passed without notice to a caveator is voidable.
- The court’s duty to recall is non-discretionary once the caveat is brought to its attention.
- Delay in recalling such orders violates the right to fair hearing under Article 21 and Section 151 CPC.
Immediate Action Required on Discovery
- Applications for recall under Section 151 CPC must be heard on the same day or next working day.
- Postponement to a future date is impermissible.
- Trial courts must maintain a log of all caveats and verify them before granting ex parte relief.
