Objections To Pecuniary Jurisdiction Must Be Raised Early In Trial, Else Would Be Barred In Appeal Unless Failure of Justice Occurs: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that objections concerning the pecuniary limits of a court's jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court. If not, they cannot be entertained by appellate or revisional courts, unless the oversight caused a failure of justice, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that objections concerning the pecuniary limits of a court's jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court. If not, they cannot be entertained by appellate or revisional courts, unless the oversight caused a failure of justice, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the court elucidated.
Differentiating lack of inherent jurisdiction and objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction a bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed,
“.. objection as to the local jurisdiction does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a court to try a case. Competence of a court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction”
Citing Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, (2007) the bench reiterated,
“The Code of Civil Procedure has made a distinction between lack of inherent jurisdiction and objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas an inherent lack of jurisdiction may make a decree passed by that court one without jurisdiction or void in law, a decree passed by a court lacking territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction does not automatically become void. At best it is voidable in the sense that it could be challenged in appeal therefrom provided the conditions of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied.”
Background:
The litigation originated from a suit filed by Sher Singh, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the J&K State Forest Corporation. Singh's complaint aimed to prevent the termination of his timber contract concerning activities in the Ghulabgarh Forest Division. The Munsiff Court, Jammu, eventually decreed the suit ex parte granting Singh ₹3,50,550 with interest from October 1993, along with the release of a CDR amount of ₹50,000.
The State Forest Corporation later raised objections to the execution of this decree, arguing that the Munsiff Court lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to pass such a judgment. These objections were rejected by the Munsiff Court and a subsequent review request was also denied.
The J&K State Forest Corporation, through its counsel Mr. Vipin Gandotra, argued that the Munsiff Court lacked jurisdiction to decree the suit, given the pecuniary valuation involved. It contended that the decree was therefore null and void. The petitioners also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Hira Lal Patni vs. Kali Nath (1962 AIR SC 199) to assert that lack of jurisdiction affects the very competence of the court, rendering the decree a nullity.
Court Observations:
Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Oswal Justice Rajnesh Oswal reiterated that under Section 21(2) CPC,
"No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice."
The court noted that in the instant case, the petitioners failed to raise any objection to the Munsiff Court's pecuniary jurisdiction when the suit was amended and remarked,
"A perusal of the written statement reveals that no objection was raised by the petitioners in respect of the pecuniary jurisdiction before the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu, after the suit was amended by the respondent."
Justice Oswal further explained that for a higher court to consider jurisdictional objections, three conditions must be satisfied:
- The objection must have been raised in the trial court.
- It must be raised at the earliest opportunity or during the settlement of issues.
- There must have been a failure of justice.
The court observed that none of these conditions were met by the petitioners. Moreover, the Munsiff Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter, rendering the decree valid despite the belated jurisdictional objections.
Dismissing another argument that valuation errors could invalidate the decree the court affirmed that procedural objections must not defeat substantive justice and dismissed the petitions, leaving the petitioners free to pursue other legal remedies if available.
Case Title: J&K State Forest Corporation Vs Sher Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 291