Held a writ petition under Article 227 dismissing a revision against rejected objections. Petitioner, a judgment debtor who already filed and lost a Section 47 CPC objection, filed a miscellaneous application alleging lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed this as lacking merit.
Writ petition dismissed; petition lacking merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12324 of 2022 Petitioner :- Brijrani Respondent :- Kamta Prasad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uttar Kumar Goswami Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner before this Court is a judgment debtor in a suit for specific performance of contract passed on 02.03.2014, for reconveyance of a property, a subject matter of sale deed. It is after the decree was put to execution that the petitioner in the capacity of judgment debtor came to file an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that objection came to be rejected on merit. It is thereafter, the petitioner preferred another objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court decreeing the suit on the ground that the concerned trial court that had decreed the suit, had no jurisdiction to hear the suit as the valuation of suit was Rs. 74,500/-. The court rejected the said application also vide order impugned against which the revision has also been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that such an objection could have taken at any point of time as it went to the root of the matter as far as the jurisdiction aspect of the decree is concerned. However, upon a query being made as to whether such an objection was either taken under Section 47 of the C.P.C. or not, learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain as to whether such an objection was ever taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner could also not dispute that Section 47 of C.P.C. objection had already been dismissed and that was never subject matter of further challenge. Still further on a pointed query being made as to what pecuniary jurisdiction the court had at the time of passing of the decree, learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain that too.
In such above view of the matter, once the judgment debtor had already filed an objection under Section 47 C.P.C., in my considered view, he could not have raised further issue of jurisdiction by filing misc. application. I therefore, do not find any manifest error in the order passed by the trial court confirmed in revision.
Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed . Consigned to records.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023/IrfanUddin
Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a judgment debtor can raise pecuniary jurisdiction objections via miscellaneous application after raising an objection under Section 47 CPC which was dismissed on merits.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brijrani
Kamta Prasad and 2 Others
Irfan Uddin Siddiki
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
