TL;DR: A caveat petition, filed under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a written request asking a court not to pass any interim order in an anticipated case without first hearing the person who lodged it. It does not stop the other side from filing the case and it does not grant a stay; it only buys notice and a hearing before an order goes through. A caveat lodged under Section 148A(1) stays in force for ninety days from the date it is lodged, unless the anticipated application is made before that period runs out.

On this page

What a caveat petition does and does not do

Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 gives a person the right to lodge a caveat when they believe someone is about to make, or has made, an application in a suit or proceeding that could affect them. The provision was inserted into the Code by Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Its text, in full, reads:

“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, acknowledgment 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.”

Read in plain terms, a caveat is a notification device. It tells the court and the prospective applicant that a named person wants to be heard before any order is passed. The Calcutta High Court explained the reasoning in Nirmal Chandra Dutta v. Girindra Narayan Roy, decided on 20 June 1978, holding that Section 148A’s object is “to safeguard the interest of a person against an order that may be passed on an application filed or expected to be filed”, and that a second object is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, since the affected person would otherwise “have to take resort to legal proceedings for the purpose of getting rid of the order” passed behind their back.

What a caveat does not do is equally important, and litigants routinely get this wrong. It does not prevent the other side from filing the suit, application or appeal; it has no bearing on whether the case can be instituted, only on what the court may do once it is, before the caveator has had a chance to be heard. It is not an injunction and grants no interim relief. It does not freeze the status quo or protect any property. Its only guaranteed effect, under sub-section (3), is that the court must serve notice on the caveator once an application is filed, so an ex parte order does not slip through unnoticed.

A caveat under Section 148A also does not extend to criminal proceedings. The Delhi High Court made this explicit in Deepak Khosla v. Union of India, decided on 11 May 2011, holding that where the proceedings in question “unquestionably are under Cr.P.C.”, the provisions of the CPC, including Section 148A, cannot be made applicable. The same logic carries over to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the CrPC; a concern about an anticipated criminal proceeding calls for a different remedy, such as anticipatory bail, covered in our guide on anticipatory bail under BNSS Section 482.

Nor does it extend to writ petitions filed under Article 226. The Rajasthan High Court held in H.G. Shanker Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 9 December 1983, that Section 148A does not apply to Article 226 proceedings, because the explanation to Section 141 CPC clarifies that such proceedings are not civil proceedings for the purposes of the Code. Anyone anticipating a writ petition should instead look to our explainer on how to file a writ petition and the companion piece on the five writs.

QuestionPosition under Section 148A CPC
Stops the other side from filing the case✗ No
Entitles the caveator to notice before an interim order✓ Yes, Section 148A(3)
Grants an automatic stay or injunction✗ No
Requires the caveator to already be a party on record✗ No, any person claiming a right to appear qualifies
Remains in force for 90 days from lodging✓ Yes, Section 148A(5)
Applies to criminal or BNSS proceedings✗ No
Applies to Article 226 writ petitions✗ No
Can be renewed after it lapsesnot specified in the Act

Who can lodge a caveat: the right to appear

Section 148A(1) uses a deliberately open phrase: “any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application”. It does not say “any party to the suit” and it does not require the person lodging the caveat to already be impleaded in the proceeding. The Delhi High Court noted in R.P. Khosla v. Company Law Board, decided on 15 January 2014, that the phraseology of the provision is wide enough to enable the lodging of a caveat on behalf of a third-party litigant who may not be impleaded in the particular proceeding at all.

That width has practical consequences. A person who is not currently a party to any suit, but who has reason to believe one affecting their interest is about to be filed, can lodge a caveat before the proceeding even exists. Common situations include:

  • A prospective defendant who learns, through a legal notice or informal channels, that a plaintiff intends to file a suit and seek an ex parte ad interim injunction the same day.
  • An heir or beneficiary who apprehends another claimant is about to apply for probate. Our comparison of succession certificate, probate and legal heir certificate sets out how these proceedings interact.
  • A co-owner or coparcener who expects a partition suit and wants to be heard before any interim arrangement over the property is ordered, as our guide on filing a partition suit and coparcener rights describes.
  • A respondent in a company law or arbitration matter who anticipates an interim application under a special statute borrowing the CPC’s caveat machinery.

The person against whom the caveat is lodged is simply “the person by whom the application has been, or is expected to be, made” under sub-section (1); there is no requirement they be identified by name with certainty, and caveats routinely describe the anticipated proceeding by property, transaction, or relationship instead.

Whether a claimed interest qualifies as “a right to appear” is a fact-specific question the court hearing the underlying application ultimately decides. In R.P. Khosla, the Delhi High Court itself declined to resolve whether the petitioners had a valid caveatable interest, holding that this was a determination for the tribunal seized of the matter, not a writ court. The lesson for a drafter: state concretely the source of the claimed interest rather than asserting the right to appear as a bare conclusion.

The 90-day life of a caveat and what happens on expiry

Section 148A(5) fixes a hard outer limit. A caveat lodged under sub-section (1) “shall not remain in force after the expiry of ninety days from the date on which it was lodged”, unless the anticipated application has been made before that period runs out. The clock starts on the date of lodging, not the date the caveat is registered or notice is served.

Two consequences follow. First, if the ninety days pass with no application filed, your caveat simply lapses; it does not need to be dismissed by any order, it ceases to have effect by operation of the statute. Section 148A is silent on whether a caveat can be renewed by a simple extension rather than a fresh filing, so treat renewal as requiring a new caveat with a new court fee and a fresh notice under sub-section (2), and confirm local practice with the registry.

Second, if the application is filed within the window, even on the last day, the caveat’s protection attaches and does not evaporate merely because the ninety days later expire while the application is pending. Sub-section (5) exists to stop caveats sitting on a court’s file indefinitely against a proceeding that never materialises, not to time-limit the protection once the proceeding has begun.

This ninety-day rule is why caveats are, in practice, a short-fuse tool, lodged when a specific proceeding is genuinely imminent rather than as a general-purpose early warning kept alive for months. For a dispute that may or may not turn into litigation over a longer horizon, a better first step is often a properly served legal notice, which our guide on how to draft a legal notice explains, followed by a caveat once you have concrete reason to expect a court filing within ninety days.

Notice duties: what the court and the applicant must do

Section 148A splits the notice burden between three actors, and each duty is triggered by a distinct event.

The caveator’s duty on lodging, under sub-section (2). Once you lodge a caveat, you must serve notice of it on the person you expect to file the application, by registered post with acknowledgment due. This is not left to the registry. On or immediately after the day you lodge the caveat, dispatch a registered AD letter to the anticipated applicant or their known counsel, enclosing a copy of the caveat, and retain the postal receipt and AD card as proof of service.

The court’s duty once an application is filed, under sub-section (3). After a caveat has been lodged and an application is subsequently filed, the court itself must serve notice of that application on the caveator. This duty sits with the registry, triggered once it checks the caveat register and finds a caveat on record against the matter or the party: the central protection the provision exists to deliver.

The applicant’s duty once notice of the caveat reaches them, under sub-section (4). The applicant must forthwith furnish the caveator, at the caveator’s own expense, with a copy of the application and any supporting papers already filed or later filed in support of it. “Forthwith” signals urgency; the applicant cannot sit on the caveator’s copies while quietly pressing for an early hearing date.

The Supreme Court underlined the seriousness of this hearing right in Mahadev Govind Gharge v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, decided on 10 May 2011, holding that “in terms of Section 148A of the Code, a caveator has a right to be heard mandatorily for the purposes of passing of an interlocutory order.” Where a caveator has already appeared and argued a matter, the object of Section 148A stands satisfied even without a fresh separate notice for every subsequent step, because the provision exists to secure an actual hearing, not to create a procedural trap.

flowchart TD
    A[Person apprehends an application affecting them] --> B["Lodge caveat under Section 148A(1)"]
    B --> C["Serve notice of caveat by registered post AD on prospective applicant - S.148A(2)"]
    C --> D{Application filed within 90 days?}
    D -- No --> E["Caveat lapses - Section 148A(5)"]
    E --> K[Lodge a fresh caveat if concern continues]
    D -- Yes --> F["Court serves notice of the application on caveator - S.148A(3)"]
    F --> G["Applicant furnishes caveator copies of application and papers - S.148A(4)"]
    G --> H[Caveator files reply or objections]
    H --> I[Court hears both sides on the interim application]
    I --> J[Court decides the application]

When an ex parte order is passed despite a caveat on record

The provision has teeth. If a court passes an order, ex parte, without giving the caveator the notice that Section 148A(3) requires, that order is vulnerable to being undone.

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, confronted this directly in Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Karunesh Jaiswal, decided on 17 September 2021. A caveat under Section 148A had been registered and was on record, and an ex parte interim order was nonetheless passed without notice to the caveator. The trial court set aside its own order once the omission was pointed out, and the High Court upheld that course, holding that a caveator’s right to a hearing under Section 148A(3) is a statutorily recognised right, and that an order passed without affording it is liable to be recalled.

The practical route runs through an application before the same court, pointing to the caveat on record, the absence of notice under sub-section (3), and asking that the order be recalled and the caveator heard before the application is decided afresh. This is generally quicker than an appeal, since the objection is procedural rather than a challenge to the merits. Drafting that application well means pointing the court quickly to authority like Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal, and a research tool such as Niyam, built to surface Indian judgments with verifiable citations, shortens the time between discovering the missed notice and filing the recall.

Two practical points follow. First, check the record: a caveat not entered against the relevant case number, party name, or property description will not stop an application from slipping through, so confirm with the registry, using an online caveat-matching facility such as the eCourts services portal’s search function where available. Second, act quickly once you learn an order has been passed without notice, since delay invites the argument that you acquiesced in it.

Filing a caveat in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s own procedure for a caveat is set out in Order XV, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which reads, in substance, that where a petition is expected to be lodged, or has been lodged, and does not relate to a pending appeal already registered in the Registry, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on its hearing may lodge a caveat, and shall thereupon be entitled to receive notice of the lodging from the Registrar, require the petitioner to serve a copy of it, and obtain copies of supporting papers at their own expense. The rule also requires the caveator to give notice of the caveat to the petitioner forthwith after lodging it, mirroring Section 148A(2) of the CPC.

Filing requires an Advocate-on-Record, the requirement governing every filing before the Court; a litigant cannot lodge a caveat through an ordinary advocate alone, consistent with the position our guide on filing a transfer petition in the Supreme Court describes for a different application.

The Registry maintains a caveat record so that when a special leave petition, transfer petition, or other proceeding is later filed against a party who has lodged a caveat, it flags this and ensures notice goes out before the matter is listed. The fee payable is prescribed under the Court’s own schedule of fees, revised periodically; confirm the current figure with the Registry or your AOR before filing rather than relying on a figure quoted informally.

Filing a caveat in a High Court

Each High Court exercises both original civil jurisdiction and appellate and revisional jurisdiction over subordinate courts, and a caveat can be relevant in either capacity. Whether the anticipated application would be moved in a suit on the original side, a first appeal, a writ appeal, or a civil revision, Section 148A CPC applies in the same terms as before any other civil court, subject to the point already noted that it does not extend to writ petitions under Article 226.

The mechanics vary by High Court, because each one’s own rules of practice prescribe the format of the caveat petition, the affidavit required, the court fee stamp, and whether e-filing is available. Some High Courts maintain a separate caveat register and filing counter. Since these rules differ between High Courts and change over time, confirm the current format, fee, and filing channel with the specific registry before drafting.

What stays constant is the substance required by Section 148A itself: a written caveat stating who is lodging it, the capacity in which they claim a right to appear, the suit or proceeding to which it relates, and service of notice on the anticipated applicant by registered post with acknowledgment due. Where the underlying dispute concerns property or title records, our checklist on property title verification, encumbrance and mutation helps identify exactly which proceeding and property description your caveat should reference.

Filing a caveat in a district court

The district judiciary sees the largest volume of caveat filings, because most civil suits, including matrimonial petitions such as those covered in our guide on mutual consent divorce, partition suits, and probate and succession matters, are filed at the district or subordinate court level rather than directly before a High Court or the Supreme Court. A caveat before a district court is filed with the court where the anticipated suit or application is expected to be instituted, identified as precisely as you can by the likely subject matter, parties, and property or transaction involved.

District courts across states increasingly route filings, including caveats, through the eCourts e-filing infrastructure, alongside physical filing at the registry counter. The eCourts services portal also provides a caveat search facility that lets a prospective applicant check whether a caveat has already been lodged against the intended opposite party or case. Tracking a filed caveat, and the underlying case once the application is made, follows the same discipline as any pending matter; our guide on checking case status through eCourts and NJDG walks through how, and our district court lawyer research workflow covers the broader routine for advocates at this level.

As with High Courts, the exact court fee for a caveat at the district level is fixed by the state’s own court-fees legislation, and varies by state and by the specific court’s practice, so confirm it locally rather than assuming a uniform figure. What does not vary is the statutory substance: a written caveat under Section 148A(1), notice under Section 148A(2), and the resulting duties on the court and applicant once the proceeding begins.

Drafting a caveat petition: clause by clause

A caveat petition is a short document, but each element does specific work, and a poorly drafted caveat can fail to attach to the right case even where the apprehension was justified.

Title and cause-title. State the court in which the caveat is lodged and, where the anticipated proceeding already has a case number, the case title and number. Where it has not yet been filed, describe it by the anticipated cause, for instance “in the matter of an anticipated suit for partition of the property described in Schedule A below.”

Description of the caveator and the capacity claimed. Name the person lodging the caveat and state, concretely, the source of their claimed right to appear: ownership, a share as a coparcener, a beneficiary’s interest under a will, a contractual right, or a statutory right under a specific enactment. As R.P. Khosla shows, the wider the provision’s language, the more the drafter must show the claimed interest is real, not a bare conclusion.

Identification of the anticipated applicant and application. Name the person expected to apply, where known, and describe the nature of the anticipated application. Where the future applicant’s identity is uncertain, describe the transaction or property precisely enough for the registry to match a future filing against the caveat.

The facts giving rise to the apprehension. State briefly why the caveator believes the application is imminent: a legal notice already received, a communicated intention to litigate, or a public act such as an advertised notice of intended sale.

The prayer. Ask the court to register the caveat, to ensure no order is passed without notice to and a hearing of the caveator, and, where applicable under sub-section (4), to direct that the caveator be furnished with copies of the application and supporting papers at the caveator’s expense.

Verification, affidavit, and proof of service. Most courts require the caveat to be verified like a plaint or supported by an affidavit; practice differs between the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and district courts. Attach, or be ready to file promptly, the postal receipt and acknowledgment card evidencing service under Section 148A(2).

Vakalatnama and appearance. File the vakalatnama authorising your advocate alongside the caveat; our explainer on the vakalatnama covers what it must contain and how it is executed.

Keep the document tight. A caveat is not the place to argue the merits of the anticipated dispute; it exists to secure a hearing, not to pre-litigate the controversy. Save the substantive arguments for the reply you file once notice of the actual application reaches you under Section 148A(3).

A worked timeline: caveat to hearing

Consider a fact pattern where a co-owner apprehends that another co-owner is about to file a suit for partition together with an application for an ad interim ex parte order restraining any transfer of the property, before a district court.

4 September 2026. On learning informally that the other side has instructed an advocate and intends to file within the month, the co-owner lodges a caveat under Section 148A(1) before the district court where the property is situated, describing the property, the anticipated suit, and the caveator’s claimed share. The same day, the advocate dispatches notice of the caveat by registered post with acknowledgment due, as Section 148A(2) requires, and retains the postal receipt.

2 October 2026. The partition suit is filed, together with I.A. No. 1 of 2026 seeking an ad interim ex parte order restraining the caveator from creating any third-party interest in the property pending the suit.

3 October 2026. The registry checks the caveat register against the case and parties, finds the caveat lodged on 4 September 2026 still in force, well within the ninety-day window that would otherwise expire on 3 December 2026, and, under Section 148A(3), issues notice of the interim application to the caveator, fixing the matter for 9 October 2026.

6 October 2026. The applicant’s advocate, on receiving notice that a caveat is on record, furnishes the caveator, at the caveator’s expense, with a copy of the plaint, the interim application, and the supporting affidavit, as Section 148A(4) requires.

9 October 2026. Both sides appear. The court hears the caveator’s objections alongside the applicant’s case and passes a reasoned order rather than an ex parte one. Whatever the outcome on the interim application, the caveator has not been shut out of the first, and often most consequential, order in the suit.

Without the caveat, the court, unaware that anyone wanted to be heard, could have passed the restraint order on 2 October 2026 on the applicant’s papers alone, leaving the co-owner to discover it after the fact and apply to have it vacated, a materially weaker position than being heard before the order is made.

Common mistakes that defeat a caveat

A handful of recurring errors explain why caveats sometimes fail to deliver on Section 148A’s promise.

Filing in the wrong court. A caveat lodged in a court that never ends up seized of the anticipated proceeding does nothing. If you expect the application to be filed in a specific district court, or before a specific High Court, lodge the caveat there.

Vague description of the anticipated proceeding. A caveat that fails to identify the property, transaction, or parties precisely enough will not be matched against the actual filing, particularly in busy registries.

Skipping the notice under sub-section (2). Some caveators lodge the caveat and stop there. The statute requires you to separately serve notice, by registered post with acknowledgment due, on the person you expect to file the application. Skipping this does not void the caveat, but removes the paper trail proving compliance.

Losing track of the ninety-day window. Caveators sometimes wrongly assume a caveat lasts indefinitely. If the apprehended proceeding has not materialised as the ninety days approach expiry and the concern remains live, lodge a fresh caveat before the old one lapses.

Treating the caveat as a substitute for substantive defence. A caveat secures a hearing; it does not win the underlying argument. Caveators who file it and do nothing further are unprepared when notice of the actual application arrives.

Failing to check the record after filing. As the discussion of ex parte orders above shows, orders are sometimes passed without notice, whether through registry oversight, a case-detail mismatch, or human error. A caveator who periodically checks case status, including through the eCourts caveat search facility, catches a missed notice early enough to seek recall before the order is acted upon.

How Niyam helps you track and act on a caveat

The value of Section 148A depends entirely on being heard at the right moment, which depends on having the right authority ready when notice of the application arrives. Whether your caveat concerns an anticipated partition suit, a probate proceeding, or an injunction application, a fast, accurate answer to what courts have held on that ground for interim relief is often the difference between a considered reply and a rushed one filed the night before a hearing.

A legal research tool trained on Indian judgments and statutes lets you move quickly from the notice you have just received to the precedent that supports your objection, with citations you can verify rather than take on faith. That verification step matters because AI tools not grounded in a real legal corpus can invent case names and citations that do not exist, a risk our piece on AI hallucinated citations in India explains, and one no advocate can afford to carry into a hearing on a live interim application.

Niyam is built for this kind of time-pressured research. It draws on a large corpus of Indian judgments and statutes, returns answers grounded in primary sources with verifiable citations, and helps you confirm the authority you are about to cite remains good law rather than an overruled decision. For the broader discipline of pinning down what a case actually says, our guide on how to read a judgment and our note on how to cite Indian judgments are useful companions once drafting your reply to the notice a caveat secured for you.

Start for Rs 100 and put a research assistant built for Indian law on your side. Create your account and prepare your caveat filings with verified authority behind them.

Frequently asked questions

What is a caveat petition under Indian law?

A caveat petition, filed under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a written request lodged with a court by a person claiming a right to appear in an anticipated or pending proceeding, asking that no order be passed without first giving the caveator notice and a hearing. It does not stop the underlying case from being filed and grants no interim relief on its own.

Who can file a caveat?

Any person claiming a right to appear before the court on the hearing of the anticipated application can lodge a caveat under Section 148A(1). The person need not already be a party on record. Courts read this broadly to include third parties with a genuine interest, such as co-owners or prospective heirs, though the strength of the claimed interest is assessed by the court hearing the application.

How long does a caveat remain valid?

A caveat lodged under Section 148A(1) remains in force for ninety days from the date it was lodged. If the anticipated application is not filed within that period, the caveat lapses by operation of the statute. If it is filed within ninety days, the caveat’s protection continues to apply to that proceeding even after the ninety days later pass.

Does a caveat stop the other side from filing a case against me?

No. A caveat cannot prevent a suit, appeal, or application from being filed. Its only guaranteed effect is that once the anticipated application is filed, the court must serve notice on the caveator before proceeding further, particularly before passing any interim order.

What happens if the court passes an order without notifying the caveator?

Such an order is vulnerable to being set aside or recalled. The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, held in Akhilesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Karunesh Jaiswal, decided on 17 September 2021, that where a caveat is on record, the court’s duty under Section 148A(3) to serve notice is a statutory duty, and an order passed without a hearing is liable to be recalled. The remedy is an application before the same court seeking recall.

Can I lodge a caveat before the suit is even filed?

Yes. Section 148A(1) expressly covers a proceeding that is “about to be instituted”, so a caveat can be lodged in anticipation of a suit or application not yet filed, provided you have a genuine, reasonably specific apprehension that it is coming.

Does a caveat apply to criminal cases?

No. The Delhi High Court held in Deepak Khosla v. Union of India, decided on 11 May 2011, that Section 148A of the CPC cannot apply to proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, since those proceedings are governed by a separate procedural code. The same reasoning extends to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the CrPC.

Can I file a caveat against a writ petition under Article 226?

No. The Rajasthan High Court held in H.G. Shanker Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 9 December 1983, that Section 148A does not apply to Article 226 proceedings, because these are not civil proceedings within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 141 of the CPC. A caveat lodged against an anticipated writ petition carries none of Section 148A’s protections.

What must I do after lodging a caveat?

Under Section 148A(2), you must serve notice of the caveat, by registered post with acknowledgment due, on the person you expect to file the application. This is your own affirmative obligation; the court does not perform this step for you. Retain the postal receipt and acknowledgment card as proof of compliance.

What must the applicant do once they are notified of a caveat?

Under Section 148A(4), once notice of the caveat has been served on the applicant, the applicant must forthwith furnish the caveator, at the caveator’s own expense, with a copy of the application and copies of any supporting papers already filed or later filed in support of it.

Can a caveat be filed in the Supreme Court?

Yes. Order XV, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 governs caveats before the Supreme Court in terms substantially similar to Section 148A CPC, and requires the caveat to be filed through an Advocate-on-Record, as with every other filing before the Court.

How is the caveat filing procedure different in a High Court or a district court?

The statutory substance under Section 148A applies uniformly, but the petition’s format, affidavit requirements, court fee, and e-filing availability differ from one High Court and one district court to another, based on each court’s own rules of practice and the applicable state court-fees legislation. Confirm the specific court’s current requirements before filing.

How much does it cost to file a caveat?

The court fee for a caveat is fixed by the applicable court-fees legislation and the specific court’s rules of practice, and it varies between the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and district courts across states. There is no single uniform figure across India. Confirm the current fee with the registry of the court where you intend to file.

Can I check whether a caveat has been filed against me before filing my own application?

Yes. The eCourts services portal provides a dedicated caveat search facility that lets a prospective applicant check whether a caveat is registered against a given case or party, so notice under Section 148A(3) can be anticipated and complied with in advance of filing.

What is the difference between a caveat and an injunction?

An injunction is a substantive order restraining a party from doing, or compelling it to do, a specific act, and requires the court to assess the underlying claim, even on a prima facie basis. A caveat is purely procedural: it restrains nothing, and only guarantees the caveator notice and a hearing before any order, including an injunction, is passed in the anticipated proceeding.