2019 (1) TMI 1972 - SC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - maintainability of the suit - whether a decree passed on appeal by a court which had jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason of undervaluation or overvaluation can be set aside on the ground that on a true valuation that court was not competent to entertain the appeal, the Court held that a mere change of forum is not 'prejudice' within Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act? - HELD THAT - The objection which was raised in execution in the present case did not relate to the subject matter of the suit. It was an objection to territorial jurisdiction which does not travel to the root of or to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain the suit. An executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute the decree as it stands. In VASUDEV DHANJIBHAI MODI VERSUS RAJABHAI ABDUL REHMAN ORS. 1970 (3) TMI 166 - SUPREME COURT , the Petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad for ejecting the Defendant-tenant. The suit was eventually decreed in his favour by this Court. During execution proceedings, the Defendant-tenant raised an objection that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and its decree was a nullity. The court executing the decree and the Court of Small Causes rejected the contention. The High Court reversed the order of the Court of Small Causes and dismissed the petition for execution. The High Court was manifestly in error in coming to the conclusion that it was within the jurisdiction of the executing court to decide whether the decree in the suit for partition was passed in the absence of territorial jurisdiction - the High Court has manifestly acted in excess of jurisdiction in reversing the judgment of the executing court which had correctly declined to entertain the objection to the execution of the decree on the ground of a want of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the court which passed the decree. By the impugned order, the High Court has directed the executing court to entertain an objection to the validity of the decree for want of territorial jurisdiction. Such an objection would not lie before the executing court. Moreover, the objection that the property at Ranchi did not belong to the common ancestor is a matter of merits, which if at all, has to be raised before the appropriate court in the first appeal - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Validity of the Decree
3. Execution Proceedings
4. Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction
5. Legislative Mandate under Section 21 of CPC

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The primary issue revolves around whether the court at Ranchi had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the partition suit. The appellant argued that an objection to territorial jurisdiction does not relate to the inherent jurisdiction of the civil court and must be raised at the earliest opportunity before the court of first instance. The respondent contended that the lack of territorial jurisdiction is an objection to the subject matter, which can be raised at any stage, including execution.

2. Validity of the Decree:
The respondent filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the validity of the decrees (preliminary decree dated 13 June 1990, final decree dated 5 April 1991, and supplementary final decree dated 18 December 2013) on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The executing court dismissed these objections, stating that it cannot go behind the decree unless the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record.

3. Execution Proceedings:
The appellant initiated execution proceedings for the final decree at Ranchi. The respondent objected, arguing that the decrees were nullities due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The executing court dismissed these objections, but the High Court reversed this decision, directing the executing court to entertain the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.

4. Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 21 of CPC, emphasizing that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity in the court of first instance. The court noted that such objections do not go to the root of the court's inherent jurisdiction and must show a consequent failure of justice to be entertained.

5. Legislative Mandate under Section 21 of CPC:
The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 21(1) of CPC mandates that objections to the place of suing must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must demonstrate a consequent failure of justice. The court referred to precedents, including Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., to illustrate that objections to territorial jurisdiction are distinct from objections to subject matter jurisdiction and must be timely raised.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in directing the executing court to entertain the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. It held that the objection to territorial jurisdiction does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the civil court and must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless the lack of jurisdiction is evident on the face of the record. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, directing the executing court to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.

← Previous Next →