Yes, you have to serve the copies of the CRP to the counsel of the caveator and get an endorsement of receiving the copies in the petition to be filed before high court. 

A civil revision petition against an order passed by a lower court in an interlocutory application (IA) must generally be filed within 90 days from the date of the order.This limitation period is prescribed by the Limitation Act of 1963. However, the High Court can condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown for the delay in filing.

The civil revision petition is against the aggrieved orders passed in IAs by lower court and not agaisnt the matter concerned with main original petition. 

You may contest the main G W original petition on merits separately.

After filing of petition the court is obligated to serve a notice of that application on the caveator 

court will not pass any orders  without hearing caveat or 

Hope you have engaged a counsel to file a caveat and CRP.

If so, caveat can be filed immediately after getting copy of the order.

The limitation kicks in from the date of issue of the copy.

G.Rajaganapathy

Advocate

High Court of Madras

• Serve Copy on Caveator: Since caveats are filed, you must serve a copy of your Civil Revision Petition (CRP) to the caveator (petitioner) at the time of filing. Provide proof of this to the High Court.

• Timeline: File the CRP within 90 days of the IA order. Delay beyond 90 days requires a written application asking for extension.

• GWOP Still Pending: You can file the CRP even if the main GWOP case is ongoing. There’s no need to wait for the final judgment.

• Vague IA Order: Challenge the unclear order in your CRP, explaining your specific issues with complying.

Summary:
Serve your CRP to the caveator, file within 90 days, and you don’t have to wait for the GWOP to finish.

No you don’t have to give anything to caveater you need to serve the notice to him before any order is obtained from court. The court will hear him before passing any order 

You are a respondent in a child custody case (GWOP) currently pending in the District Court. Two Interlocutory Applications have already been decided, and you now wish to challenge those orders by filing a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) before the High Court. However, the petitioner in the case has filed caveats in both IAs, and you’re wondering whether you need to serve a copy of the CRP directly to the caveator while filing.

If a caveat has been filed, the High Court registry will notify the caveator before passing any interim order in the CRP. You are not required to serve the CRP to the caveator at the time of filing, but the court will ensure that the caveator is informed and heard before any order is passed.

Regarding the time limit for filing the CRP, there is a common misconception that you can wait until the main GWOP trial concludes. In reality, the 90-day limitation period applies from the date of the IA judgment you are challenging. The fact that the main trial hasn’t started yet doesn’t extend this timeline.

In your case, the second IA order directed you to cooperate with the mother for renewing the US passport of the minor child. You have stated in your written reply that you are willing to obtain the passport provided the mother hands over the child and the necessary documents. The court’s use of the term “cooperate” is vague and leaves room for misinterpretation. Considering the pending 498A case and your unwillingness to engage directly with the mother or sign any related documents, it is reasonable for you to seek clarification or modification of the order through a CRP.

You can file a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) in the High Court to challenge the orders passed in the IAs during your ongoing GWOP case. Since the petitioner has already filed caveats in both IAs, you must, after filing your CRP in the High Court, promptly serve a complete copy of your CRP and all supporting documents upon the caveator. You are not required to hand over the papers before filing, but you must ensure that service is effected immediately after filing. Retain proof of service to demonstrate compliance if the court calls for it.

You should file the CRP within 90 days from the date of the order you wish to challenge, as per the Limitation Act. The suggestion that you can file until the GWOP concludes is incorrect—delaying beyond 90 days requires a condonation of delay application, which the court may not always accept. Filing on time preserves your rights and avoids unnecessary procedural hurdles.

Regarding the district court’s direction for you to “cooperate” with the mother in your child’s US passport renewal, if the judgment is vague or places you at any legal risk (such as exposure due to the pending 498A case), you can use your CRP to seek clarification or a stay on the order. Argue that cooperation should not require joint appearances or actions that may endanger your legal interests, especially in light of the criminal proceedings. Your written willingness to assist, conditioned on receiving the child and necessary documents, is a reasonable stance and can be highlighted as responsible compliance.

You do not lose your right to contest or seek relief simply because a caveat is filed; it only means you must ensure prompt service and provide notice to the caveator. Proceed with your CRP as outlined, and if you need legal drafting assistance, case strategy, or experienced representation for these proceedings, please feel free to contact me for a professional consultation. I am here to help safeguard your interests and navigate the complexities of your case.

Best regards,

Caveat is valid for 90 days 

2) After 90 days, if no application has been filed by the person against whom the caveat was filed (the caveatee), the caveat expires. Therefore, if the caveator anticipates further legal action after the initial 90 days, they must file a fresh caveat to maintain their protection,

Article 227 can be filed in HC only if there is no other alternative remedy 

Yes, you can file under Article 227 of the Constitution even after 90 days, since it is a supervisory jurisdiction and not bound by the CRP limitation. However, you must show sufficient cause for delay and that the lower court’s order causes grave injustice or jurisdictional error. Courts entertain it sparingly.

A CRP under Article 227 is typically filed when a party seeks to challenge an order passed by a lower court or tribunal that is considered illegal, irregular, or without jurisdiction.

Many CRPs are filed under Article 227 in various High Courts across India, as seen in cases involving challenges to orders related to civil suits, revenue matters, and other legal proceedings. 

Article 227 empowers High Courts to review the decisions of subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure they are acting within their legal boundaries and following proper procedure.

Therefore, if there is an inordinate delay to file a CRP, i.e., beyond 90 days then you can file the petition under article 227 of the constitution.

Hi,

You can approach High Court by filing CRP in 2 IAs i.e. two CRPs. Yes, there is a limitation for filing CRP before High Court. It is better to file CRP. 

If you do not file CRP within prescribed time under law, then you have to file CRP along with condone delay petition by narrating reasons for delay in filing the same. 

No need to serve any copies on caveator before filing crp. After filing Court will order notice on respondent as there is caveat. Even if you serve notice, Court will again direct notice through Court. Hence, there is no sense in serving notice. Limitation is 90 days.

Go ahead.