SC addresses the issue of raising jurisdictional objections during execution proceedings after failing in the litigation process, Read Judgment

The Supreme Court has emphasized the principle that an Executing Court's role is limited to executing the terms of a decree and should not delve into issues of jurisdiction beyond its scope. The Court also clarified that statutory amendments affecting the forum for adjudication should be applied retrospectively, and it independently verified jurisdiction.

Facts of the Case:

The appellant had executed a 33-year registered lease in favour of respondent no. 2. After the lease's expiration, the appellant demanded vacant possession, leading to disputes regarding the lease's extension. A suit for ejectment, possession recovery, rent arrears, and damages was filed before the Wakf Tribunal, culminating in a 2002 decree that was later upheld by the High Court. Respondents no(s). 1 and 2 employed delaying tactics, leading to execution proceedings, during which they raised the plea that the suit should not have been entertained citing Faseela M. v. Munnerul Islam Madrasa Committee & Anr.^[1], which in turn relied upon the decision rendered in Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf^[2] (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ramesh Gobindram’), ultimately leading to the current appeal.

Contentions of the Parties:

The appellant argued that no objections to the suit were raised by the respondents until the execution petition stage. They highlighted that the decision in Ramesh Gobindram was clarified by the Court in Rashid Wali Beg v. Farid Pindari and Ors.^[3] and contended that subsequent amendments to the law had rendered the basis of Ramesh Gobindram irrelevant. The Wakf Board maintained that the Wakf Tribunal already possessed jurisdiction over suits related to Wakf and Wakf property under the Wakf Act of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as confirmed in Rashid Wali Beg judgment.

The respondents on the other hand argued that the plea of nullity could be raised at any stage. They referred to Sections 6 and 7 of the Act and invoked Ramesh Gobindram to assert that the Wakf Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide eviction issues concerning Wakf property. They maintained that the impugned order relied on Ramesh Gobindram and, thus, should not be interfered with.

Observations of the Court:

The Supreme Court first emphasized the principle that an Executing Court is generally restricted to executing the terms of a decree and should not delve into issues of jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 47 and Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court clarified that “the onus lies heavily on the judgment-debtor to convince the Court that a decree is inexecutable.”

The Court noted the importance of a party's conduct, stating that if a party had an opportunity to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction but did not do so, it should not be allowed to raise such a plea during the execution proceedings as an afterthought to suit their convenience. The Court cited the judgment in the Union of India and Ors. v. N. Murugesan and Ors^[4]. which shed light on the principle of 'approbate and reprobate,' which means that a party cannot simultaneously accept and reject the same thing or blow hot and cold. The Court distinguished between cases involving coram non-judice, where the question of jurisdiction may differ, and those involving the same rights and liabilities but a question of forum, where the issue of jurisdiction is of less significance when raised belatedly.

Regarding the retrospective application of statutory amendments, the Court reiterated that “when a statute is amended on an issue pertaining to a forum for adjudication, it being procedural takes effect retrospectively.” A party to a lawsuit does not possess a vested right to a specific forum. The Court clarified that when the amendment to a statute concerns the forum for adjudication, it should be applied retrospectively, provided it does not take away substantive rights.

The Court stressed its responsibility to independently verify jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC even if it is not raised by the parties to prevent injustice and uphold fairness in procedural law.

Finally, the Court reviewed its previous decision in the Rashid Wali Beg judgment, which held that the amendment of the Wakf Act in 2013 removed the basis for an earlier judgment, providing the Wakf Tribunal with sufficient jurisdiction to hear all suits related to Wakf and Wakf properties, except as barred by the statute.

The decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that “as per the amendment by way of Act 27 of 2013, the jurisdiction now lies with the Wakf Tribunal” and the conduct of respondents 1 and 2 in prolonging the proceedings for over two decades was not in their favour. The Court endorsed the retrospective application of the 2013 amendment, setting aside the High Court's impugned order and restoring the decision of the Executing Court. The appeal was allowed, with no costs.

Case Title: Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Justices M. M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra

Case No.: C.A. No. 6933 / 2023

Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 826 SC

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Huzefa Ahmadi, Senior Advocate, Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, Rajeswari Mukherjee, Niti Richhariya, and Meeran Maqbool.

Advocate for the Respondent: Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate, B. Shravanth Shanker, Prerna Robin, Rahul Jajoo, Devadipta Das, K. Parameshwar, Arti Gupta, Kanti, and Chinmay Kalgaonkar

Read Judgment @LatestLaws

Picture Source :