Whether the court should consider defence taken by the defendant in his written statement if he fails to participate in the proceeding subsequently?

 The counsel for the appellant/defendant has contended that the suit was not maintainable owing to this Court lacking territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Attention of this court is invited to the paragraph in the written statement filed, objecting to territorial jurisdiction.

14. Attention of the counsel for the appellant/defendant has however been invited to Section 21 of the CPC which bars any objection as to the place of suing being allowed by the Appellate Court unless such objection was taken in the Court at first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and where issues are settled, on or before such settlement and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. The appellant/defendant though claims to have taken an objection in the written statement but gave up his defence including the said objection by choosing not to participate in the suit and did not claim any issue qua its objection of territorial jurisdiction and did not contest the territorial jurisdiction as pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant now in this appeal is not entitled to raise the plea of territorial jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

RFA (OS) 10/2020 and CM Nos. 3551 and 3553/2020

Decided On: 13.03.2020

 Bharat Bhogilal Patel  Vs.   Nokia Corporations and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ.

Print Page

Whether executing court can go behind decree if objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of court passing the decree was taken?

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. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2019

SNEH LATA GOEL Vs PUSHPLATA & ORS.

DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Dated:January 7, 2019

Print Page

Whether objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction of court can be taken at appellate stage?

 In the light of the above, it is clear
that no objection to the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the court which tried OS No.
61 of 1971 could be raised successfully even
in an appeal against that very decree unless
it had been raised at the earliest
opportunity and a failure of justice or
prejudice was shown. Obviously therefore, it
could not be collaterally challenged. That
too not by the plaintiffs therein, but by a
defendant whose alienation was unsuccessfully
challenged by the plaintiffs in that suit.”
56. Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is
apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of
Additional District Judge, that no objection to the
competence of Additional District Judge to decide the
case was taken by any of the parties. No objection
having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code comes into play. Subsection
(2) of
Section 21 provides that no objection as to the
competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary

limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions
mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having
been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of
the Court. Subsection
(2) precludes the revisionist to
raise any objection regarding competence of the court
and further revisional court ought not to have allowed
such objection regarding competence of Court of
Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The
respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding
competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed
to turnround
and contend that the court of Additional
District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small
Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and
nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such
objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any
objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the
small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
57. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not
adverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In judgment of Shobhit Nigam(Supra) also, affect of
Section 21 was neither considered nor raised. Section 21
contains a legislative policy which policy has an object
and purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial of
cases on merit on basis of technical objections.

62. We thus hold that even when the court of Additional
District Judge was not competent to decide the Small
Causes Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniary
jurisdiction is vested in Court of Small Causes i.e.
Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, no
interference was called in the judgment of Additional
District Judge in the exercise of Revisional
Jurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions of
Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052
OF 2018

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED
THR. LRS.  Vs  VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. 

Print Page

Whether change in the forum of appeal amounts to prejudice as per S 11 of suit valuation Act?

One more submission which was raised in the said
appeal was considered by this Court. One of the
submission of the appellant who had instituted the suit
in the subordinate court was that as per the revised
valuation, the appeal against the decree of subordinate
judge did not lay before the District Court but to the

High Court, hence, the judgment of the District Judge in
appeal should be ignored. The appeal in the High Court
be treated as first appeal. It was contended that
appellant has been prejudiced in the above manner.
Rejecting the above submissions, this court laid down
following in paragraphs 11 and 12:“
11.………This argument proceeds on a
misconception. The right of appeal is no doubt
a substantive right, and its deprivation is a
serious prejudice; but the appellants have not
been deprived of the right of appeal against
the judgment of the Subordinate Court. The law
does provide an appeal against that judgment
to the District Court, and the plaintiffs have
exercised that right. Indeed, the
undervaluation has enlarged the appellants’
right of appeal, because while they would have
had only a right of one appeal and that to the
High Court if the suit had been correctly
valued, by reason of the undervaluation they
obtained right to two appeals, one to the
District Court and another to the High Court.
The complaint of the appellants really is not
that they had been deprived of a right of
appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate
Court, which they have not been, but that an
appeal on the facts against that judgment was
heard by the District Court and not by the
High Court. This objection therefore amounts
to this that a change in the forum of appeal
is by itself a matter of prejudice for the
purpose of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.
12. The question, therefore, is, can a decree
passed on appeal by a court which had

jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason of
undervaluation, be set aside on the ground
that on a true valuation that court was not
competent to entertain the appeal? Three High
Courts have considered the matter in Full
Benches, and have come to the conclusion that
mere change of forum is not a prejudice within
the meaning of Section 11 of the Suits
Valuation Act. Vide Kelu Achan v. Cheriya
Parvathi Nethiar Mool Chand v. Ram Kishan and
Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain. In our judgment,
the opinion expressed in these decisions is
correct………”

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052
OF 2018

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED
THR. LRS.  Vs  VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR. 
Dated:October 12,2018.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Print Page

Whether party can challenge jurisdiction of court at appellate stage or revisional stage?

 Now, reverting back to facts of this case it is
apparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 of
Additional District Judge, that no objection to the
competence of Additional District Judge to decide the
case was taken by any of the parties. No objection
having been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Additional District Judge, Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code comes into play. Subsection
(2) of
Section 21 provides that no objection as to the
competence of the Court with reference to the pecuniary

limits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by any
Appellate or Revisional Court unless conditions
mentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection having
been raised by respondent tenant regarding competence of
the Court. Subsection
(2) precludes the revisionist to
raise any objection regarding competence of the court
and further revisional court ought not to have allowed
such objection regarding competence of Court of
Additional District Judge to decide the suit. The
respondent tenant did not raise any objection regarding
competence of the Court and took a chance to obtain
judgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowed
to turnround
and contend that the court of Additional
District Judge had no jurisdiction to try the Small
Cause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction and
nullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any such
objection by unsuccessful party who did not raise any
objection regarding competence of court and allowed the
matter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding the
small cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequent
failure of justice.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052
OF 2018
(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 42754276
of 2017)

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs  VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR

Dated:October 12,2018.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Print Page