The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that lack of territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are not akin to inherent lack of jurisdiction and does not render judgment and decree passed by Court not having territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions a nullity. The Section 21(1) of C.P.C., is a clear indicator of the same.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the suit relating to the mortgage of the schedule property was filed by the Respondent no. 1. The preliminary decree was passed. Then, the final decree was also passed. Thereafter, an execution application was filed under Section 47 r/w 151 C.P.C., to declare the judgment and decree as a nullity as the same is passed without territorial jurisdiction. The trial court declared the judgment and decree as null and void. Therefore, the present revision is filed.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that despite the fact that Section 16 C.P.C. stipulates that a mortgage suit must be filed within the municipal limits in which the property is located, the respondents did not raise any objections when the preliminary or final decrees were passed. As per the provisions of Section 21 (1) C.P.C., a revisional court or appellate court cannot object to the territorial jurisdiction unless there is a failure of justice.
The court furthermore observed that it is well settled law that lack of territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are not akin to inherent lack of jurisdiction and does not render judgment and decree passed by Court not having territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions a nullity. The Section 21(1) of C.P.C., is a clear indicator of the same.
The court noted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the suit cannot urge the same in execution proceedings or in application under section 47 C.P.C.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the order passed by the executing court runs contrary to the fundamental principles of C.P.C. The Court set aside the order of the executing court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the civil revision petition.
Case Title: Chelluboina Papayamma (died) & 3 Others and Others vs Nene Chandra Ma Chandravathi Another and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice Nyapathy Vijay
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No: 1337/2013
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. K S Murthy, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent :Mr. J Venkata Ramana
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
