In this Article 226 matter questioning the jurisdiction of an executing court, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and retaining inherent jurisdiction over execution proceedings.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138746
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4711 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sri Subash Respondent :- Sri Robin And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narayan Dutt Shukla,Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Hemant Sharma
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
"19. Consent of parties will not confer jurisdiction of appeal where none has been vested by law. Similarly failure to raise the objection in regard to the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal will not cure the defect of inherent lack of jurisdiction in this case. It is true that issue of jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest stage. However, it is equally well settled that the plea regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction can be taken at any stage and also in collateral proceedings. Ample authorities in point support these propositions."
Order Date :- 13.7.2023 SK
(Jayant Banerji, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the executing court lacks jurisdiction to execute a permanent injunction decree against a co-tenure holder.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C/M Krishna Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶9
2022 (3) ADJ 110
Sri Subash
Sri Robin
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
