# Smt. Raphia v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 625
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-11-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70003 of 2005
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-raphia-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40558
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

High Court Rules 1952, Chapter 22 Rule5-readwith Code of Civil ProcedureSection 148-A (5)-Caveat Applicationonce filed in writ proceeding or other
proceeding not governed by C.P.C.-
Stamp reporter can not ignore from
reporting on the ground of expiry of 90
days-section
148-A
C.P.C.-held
not
applicable in writ proceedings.

Held: Para 6 and 8

From a plain reading of Section 148A of
the C.P.C., it is clear that this provision is
applicable
in
a
suit
or
proceeding
instituted or about to be instituted in a
Court. Section 148A of the C.P.C. will be
applicable to the suits or proceedings
governed by the C.P.C. and not in the
other proceedings not governed by the
C.P.C.

From perusal of the provisions of Rule 5
of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, this Court is of the
considered view that once a Caveat is
filed
in
a
writ
petition
or
other
proceedings not governed by the C.P.C.,
the Stamp Reporter is bound to make a
report about filing of the Caveat. As
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Section 148A of the C.P.C. will not be
applicable to the writ petitions, the
Stamp Reporter is not competent to
ignore the Caveat filed in writ petitions
on the ground that 90 days have expired.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Raphia V. State of U.P. and others
625
and further there are L.T grade post. It is
not a case seeking promotion from C.T
grade to L.T. grade. The promotion from
C.T grade to L.T grade is governed by
Rules and Regulations. The requirement
of vacancy is necessary when question of
promotion is considered. I am not
concerned in this case with regard to
promotion in L.T grade, hence the
vacancy existence or non existence is not
relevant for purposes of present case.
Thus the grounds taken in the counter
affidavit also do not substantiate the plea
taken by the State in denying the claim of
the petitioner. It is relevant to note that in
the order passed by Regional Inspectress
of Girls School, it has not been stated that
services
of
the
petitioner
are
not
satisfactory. The entitlement under the
Government Order to get salary is based
on satisfactory completion of 10 years of
service. The petitioner having admittedly
completed 10 years service on 1.1.1986,
she is clearly entitled for fixation of salary
in L.T grade from 1.1.1986. Consequently
the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 26.8.1999 annexure-9 to the writ
petition is quashed. A writ of mandamus
is issued to the respondent to treat the
petitioner in L.T grade with effect from
1.1.1986 and fix her salary accordingly.
The petitioner is entitled to all her
consequential benefits. The respondents
are directed to pay arrears of salary within
a period of six months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order.

12. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70003 of 2005

Smt. Raphia

...Petitioner
Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
Secretary,
Department
of
Revenue,
U.P.,
at
Lucknow and others
...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.R. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

High Court Rules 1952, Chapter 22 Rule5-readwith Code of Civil ProcedureSection 148-A (5)-Caveat Applicationonce filed in writ proceeding or other
proceeding not governed by C.P.C.-
Stamp reporter can not ignore from
reporting on the ground of expiry of 90
days-section
148-A
C.P.C.-held
not
applicable in writ proceedings.

Held: Para 6 and 8

From a plain reading of Section 148A of
the C.P.C., it is clear that this provision is
applicable
in
a
suit
or
proceeding
instituted or about to be instituted in a
Court. Section 148A of the C.P.C. will be
applicable to the suits or proceedings
governed by the C.P.C. and not in the
other proceedings not governed by the
C.P.C.

From perusal of the provisions of Rule 5
of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952, this Court is of the
considered view that once a Caveat is
filed
in
a
writ
petition
or
other
proceedings not governed by the C.P.C.,
the Stamp Reporter is bound to make a
report about filing of the Caveat. As
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Section 148A of the C.P.C. will not be
applicable to the writ petitions, the
Stamp Reporter is not competent to
ignore the Caveat filed in writ petitions
on the ground that 90 days have expired.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. When the case was taken, this was
brought to the notice of the Court that the
Caveat was reported by the Stamp
Reporter when the writ petition was
presented for reporting before him, but
subsequently he scored out the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
stated that Caveat was wrongly reported
by the Stamp Reporter, but on his
objection to the effect that Caveat remains
effective for only 90 days, the report was
scored out and another report to the effect
that no Caveat has been filed was made
by the Stamp Reporter. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner referred Section 148-A
(5) of the C.P.C. in support of his
contention.

3. Learned counsel for Caveator, in
reply, urged that provisions of C.P.C. will
not be applicable with regard to lodging
Caveat in writ petitions. The only
provision under which Caveat could be
lodged in writ petitions is Rule 5 of
Chapter XXII of The Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952. He further urged that
Caveat was rightly reported by the Stamp
Reporter, but the report was wrongly and
illegal scored out by Stamp Reporter at
the instance of petitioner's counsel. He
also urged that petitioner is entitled to be
heard in opposition at the initial stage.

4. Considered arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and relevant rules
on the point.

5. Section 148A of the C.P.C. is
being
reproduced
below
for
ready
reference:-

"148A. 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.
(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.
(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."

6. From a plain reading of Section
148A of the C.P.C., it is clear that this
provision is applicable in a suit or
2 All] Nagendra Singh V. Board of Directors, Deoria Kasaya Sahkari Bank and others
627
proceeding instituted or about to be
instituted in a Court. Section 148A of the
C.P.C. will be applicable to the suits or
proceedings governed by the C.P.C. and
not in the other proceedings not governed
by the C.P.C.

7. I have also carefully gone through
Rule 5 of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, which is being
reproduced below:-

"Lodging of Caveat.-(1) Where an
application is expected to be made or has
been made, any person claiming the right
to oppose such an application, may, either
personally or through his counsel, lodge a
caveat in the Court in respect thereof.

(2) The caveator shall serve a notice
of
the
caveat
by
registered
post,
acknowledgment due, on the person by
whom the application is expected to be
made and submit proof of service in
Court.

(3) After the caveat has been lodged
and the notice thereof has been served on
the applicant's counsel, the applicant shall
forthwith furnish to the caveator or his
counsel, at the caveator's expense, with a
copy of the application as well as any
miscellaneous application made therein
for interim relief.

(4) Where a caveat has been lodged
and notice thereof has been served the
applicant shall when presenting the
application in Court, furnish proof of
having given prior notice in writing to the
caveator's counsel of the date on which
the
application
is
proposed
to
be
presented."

8. From perusal of the provisions of
Rule 5 of Chapter XXII of The Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952, this Court is of
the considered view that once a Caveat is
filed
in
a
writ
petition
or
other
proceedings not governed by the C.P.C.,
the Stamp Reporter is bound to make a
report about filing of the Caveat. As
Section 148A of the C.P.C. will not be
applicable to the writ petitions, the Stamp
Reporter is not competent to ignore the
Caveat filed in writ petitions on the
ground that 90 days have expired.

9. Accordingly, I hold that Stamp
Reporter on the objection raised by
petitioner's counsel wrongly scored out
the report which was rightly made earlier
about filing of the Caveat by the
Caveator's counsel.

10. Stamp Reporter shall take care
of this in future while reporting Caveat
filed in the writ petitions.

11. Registrar General of the Court is
directed to take appropriate steps for
compliance of this order.

As prayed, put up day after tomorrow for
admission.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7739 of 2004

Nagendra Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Directors, Deoria-Kasaya Zila
Sahkari
Bank
Limited,
Head
OfficeDeoria,
District
Deoria
through
its
Chairman and others
 ...Respondents