1989 (11) TMI 320 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court, Validity of Decree, Admissibility of Affidavits

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The revision petition challenges an order passed by the Addl. Munsiff No. 1, Jaipur City, in Execution Petition No. 43/81. The petitioner argues that the decree is null and void as it was passed by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents like Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Hira Lal v. Kalinath, the petitioner contends that a decree from a court without jurisdiction is invalid. However, the court notes that the case was transferred by the District Judge from a court lacking jurisdiction to a competent court, rendering the objection on territorial jurisdiction baseless.

Validity of Decree:
The petitioner further argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the ex parte decree. Referring to Order 18, C.P.C., the court highlights the necessity for the plaintiff to produce evidence even in ex parte cases. The court emphasizes the importance of recording evidence under Order 18 and explains the requirements for proving a fact under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the court clarifies that affidavits can only be considered as evidence if permitted by the court under Order 19 Rule 1, as affirmed in the case of Smt. Sudha Devi V. M. P. Narayanan. Since the decree was primarily based on affidavits without proper authorization, it could be deemed a nullity.

Admissibility of Affidavits:
The court addresses the issue of admissibility of affidavits as evidence, emphasizing that affidavits must be permitted by the court to be considered as evidence. Affidavits produced without proper authorization cannot be relied upon as evidence to support a case. The court concludes that the decree, predominantly relying on such unauthorized affidavits, lacks a valid evidentiary basis and may be considered void.

In conclusion, the court accepts the revision petition, setting aside the lower court's order and allowing the objections filed by the petitioner. The court directs further proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the law.