‘Objection regarding jurisdiction not akin to competence of court’
Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Dec 4: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that in exercise of power of superintendence and control conferred by Article 227 of Constitution of India it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts or tribunals unless there is failure of justice. Moreover, objection regarding local jurisdiction of court is not akin to competence of the court to try a case.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri was dealing with a petition seeking writ jurisdiction of High Court for quashment of order passed by Principal District Judge Jammu (Executing Court) vide which objection of the petitioner/judgment debtor regarding jurisdiction of the Executing Court came to be rejected and warrant for attachment of bank account of the petitioner was issued and subsequently the Executing Court issued a reminder to the concerned bank for remittal of decretal amount from the bank account of the petitioner to the Executing Court.
The petitioner (M/s Oikos India Pvt Ltd) questioned the orders on the solitary ground that since a preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction was struck by the trial court, therefore, trial court, regardless of the absence of the defendant, was obliged to return a finding on the issue in terms of Order XIV Rule 2(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Moreover, it was submitted that since issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of the trial court remained unaddressed, therefore, impugned order passed by the Executing Court declining the objection regarding maintainability and executability of the impugned decree is bad in the eyes of law.
After hearing counsels for the parties, Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed, “it is trite that High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence and control conferred by Article 227 of Constitution of India cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts or tribunals as its function is confined and circumscribed to see that the courts or the tribunals subordinate under its superintendence function within the bounds of their authority”, adding “therefore, power of judicial interference envisaged under Article 227 of Constitution of India is to be exercised with due care and circumspection”.
“A plea of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any subsequent stage; before the 1st Appellate Court, Second Appellate Court and in execution proceedings. However, distinction between jurisdiction with respect to subject matter of suit and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction must be understood”, High Court said.
The High Court further said, “maintainability and executability of a decree can be questioned in subsequent proceedings and in execution proceedings only, if the court which passed the decree was lacking inherent jurisdiction, because competency of a court to decide a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction and where competency of a trial court is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The objection regarding territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, if not raised at the proper time, cannot be allowed to be raised in subsequent proceedings and decree passed in such a case, will not be nullity, because objection regarding territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of a court does not go to the root of jurisdiction. Be that as it may, objection regarding local jurisdiction of a court can also be waived in view of statutory recognition provided by Section 21 CPC”.
Pointing towards Section 21 of CPC, Justice Sekhri observed, “the underlying principal is that when a case has been tried by a court on merits and a judgment is rendered, it should not be reversed purely on technical grounds unless it occasions a failure of justice”, adding “legislature, in its wisdom, has treated the objections regarding territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions as technical and, therefore, such objections cannot be raised and considered in subsequent proceedings before the appellate courts or the Executing Court, unless prejudice is shown to have been caused on merits”.
“It is well settled that objection regarding local jurisdiction of court is not akin to competence of the court to try a case because jurisdiction of court on subject matter of the case goes to the root of the jurisdiction”, High Court said, adding “it is trite position of law that a decree passed by a competent court of jurisdiction, after adjudication on merits, binds the parties or the persons claiming right, title or interest and its validity can be assailed only in an appeal or revision, as the case may be”
Stating that validity of a decree validly passed by a competent court of law cannot be questioned in subsequent proceedings before the appellate or Executing Court, High Court said, “an objection that the court which has been approached by a party lacks inherent jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the dispute is not similar and does not stand on the same footing as an objection regarding territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of the court”, adding “objection with respect to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of a court cannot be entertained after settlement of issues, unless failure of justice is caused”.
Accordingly, High Court dismissed the petition for being bereft of merit.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
