2017 (12) TMI 1888 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the Trial Court post-decree - Functus Officio status of the Trial Court - suit filed by the plaintiff-Nagarathnamma was decreed by the Trial Court, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property - application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT - This Court called for explanation from the concerned Judge, who passed the impugned orders as to under what circumstances, he has issued directions to provide the police protection and to issue katha in respect of the agricultural lands, that too after disposal of the suit between the parties and this Court also made it clear that the petitioners are claiming their rights in respect of Site Nos. 34, 35 and 37 and it is always open for the petitioners to approach the Competent Court or appropriate Court to protect their rights, if any in accordance with law. Functus Officio status of the Trial Court - HELD THAT - Once the decree passed by the Trial Court on 1-4-2017 has reached finality, the learned Judge, who passed the judgment and decree becomes functus officio and he cannot alter or direct any authorities to implement the decree and if somebody violated the decree passed by the Trial Court, it is always open for the decree-holder to protect his rights as per the decree in accordance with law. Unfortunately, in the present case, learned Judge proceeded to issue direction to the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Byatarayanapura to issue katha in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the agricultural lands, for which the BBMP has no power - Once the decree reached finality, the learned Judge who passed the judgment and decree becomes/functus officio and absolutely the Trial Judge, who passed the decree has no power to issue such directions. In a judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, utmost the Trial Judge can correct any arithmetical/clerical errors as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Beyond that, he cannot issue any directions, that too in respect of agricultural lands directing the Joint Commissioner, BBMP to issue katha. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The petitioners brought to the notice of the Court that after the judgment and decree is passed, the learned Judge who passed the impugned orders becomes functus officio and therefore, the impugned orders passed are without jurisdiction and hence, it is the duty of this Court to set right the same in order to maintain judicial discipline in the legal system. Even in the absence of the present petitions, once it is brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioners or respondents, it is the duty of this Court to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to rectify the mistake committed by the learned Judge, who passed the impugned orders, which are totally without jurisdiction. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court post-decree.
2. Functus Officio status of the Trial Court.
3. Validity of directions issued by the Trial Court after the decree.
4. Locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the Trial Court's orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court Post-Decree:

The primary issue revolves around whether the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to issue directions after the decree had been passed on 1-4-2017. The petitioners challenged the orders dated 13-4-2017 and 17-7-2017, arguing that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to direct the issuance of katha and police protection for the suit schedule property. The Court held that once a decree is passed and reaches finality, the Trial Court becomes functus officio, meaning it has no further authority to alter or enforce the decree. The Trial Court's directions to the police and BBMP were deemed beyond its jurisdiction and therefore invalid.

2. Functus Officio Status of the Trial Court:

The concept of functus officio was central to the judgment. The Court elaborated on this legal doctrine, citing various legal dictionaries and precedents, to emphasize that once a judgment is pronounced, the judge becomes functus officio and cannot modify or enforce the decree further. The Trial Court, having issued the decree on 1-4-2017, was found to have exhausted its authority and was not competent to issue subsequent orders for police protection or katha issuance.

3. Validity of Directions Issued by the Trial Court After the Decree:

The directions issued by the Trial Court on 13-4-2017 and 17-7-2017 were scrutinized for their validity. The Court found these orders to be without jurisdiction, as they were issued after the Trial Court had become functus officio. The orders directing the police to provide protection and the BBMP to issue katha were quashed. The Court noted that any enforcement of the decree should be pursued through appropriate legal channels by the decree-holder, rather than through post-decree orders by the Trial Court.

4. Locus Standi of the Petitioners to Challenge the Trial Court's Orders:

The petitioners' standing to file the writ petitions was questioned by the respondents, who argued that the petitioners were not parties to the original suit and had no claim over the suit schedule property. However, the petitioners contended that they were affected by the impugned orders as they were the owners of different sites in the vicinity. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' right to challenge the jurisdictional overreach of the Trial Court, emphasizing the duty of the higher courts to correct jurisdictional errors and maintain judicial discipline.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the impugned orders of the Trial Court dated 13-4-2017 and 17-7-2017, reaffirming the principle that a court becomes functus officio post-decree and cannot issue further directions. The decree-holder was advised to seek enforcement through appropriate legal processes, while the petitioners were directed to pursue their claims in respect of their properties through competent legal forums. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to jurisdictional limits and the functus officio doctrine in judicial proceedings.