Hemavathi and Others vs G.R. Srinivasa Murthy and Others

B. Manohar, J.—Petitioners are the judgment debtors in Ex. No. 29/2006 on the file of XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2014 made on I.A. No. 8, filed this writ petition.

The first respondent herein filed O.S. No. 5689/1995 seeking for declaration, declaring that he is the absolute owner of the property and restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners, who are the contesting defendants in the said suit, though served with notice remained unrepresented. The trial court after examining the matter in detail passed the judgment and decree on 27.7.1998. The said judgment and decree has become final. Thereafter the plaintiff filed Ex. No. 29/2006 for execution of the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 5689/95. The defendants/Judgment Debtors filed I.A. No. 8 on 20.11.2013 seeking for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the court which has passed the decree has no territorial jurisdiction.

The decree holder filed objections to the said application i.e., I.A. No. 8 contending that after a lapse of 16 years after the passing of judgment and decree, the judgment debtors cannot raise such an objection and sought for dismissal of I.A. No. 8.

The trial court after examining the matter in detail found that the suit has been filed in the year 1995. After the trial, the judgment and decree was passed on 27.7.1998 and for enforcement of the judgment and decree, Ex. No. 29/2006 has been filed. I.A. No. 8 has been filed in the year 2013 seeking for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the court has no territorial jurisdiction to pass the said decree. The trial court, holding that such an objection cannot be raised after a long lapse of time, dismissed I.A. No. 8 filed by the judgment debtors. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the order passed by the executing court is contrary to law. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court can be raised at any stages of the proceeding. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others, and contended that at the stage of execution also the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction can be taken and sought for setting aside the order impugned by allowing the writ petition.

On the other hand Sri Balaram M.L., advocate appearing for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the trial court. He further contended that the issue regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction has to be taken at the first instance, after passing of the decree and after a lapse of 16 years the petitioners cannot raise such an objection. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad and Others, and Kumar and Vasantha Vs. Papanna Muniswamappa, Ramagondanahalli Muniswamappa (since deceased rep. by his LRs. Papamma Muniswamappa, Rajamma and Rani) and Venkatappa Muniswamappa, and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned advocate appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records.

The records clearly disclose that for enforcement of judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 5689/1995, the Execution petition has been filed in the year 2006. In the year 2013, I.A. No. 8 has been filed under section 151 of C.P.C. seeking for dismissal of the execution petition contending that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to pass the judgment and decree against the judgment debtors. The Judgment debtors were parties to the said proceedings. Though they were served with the notice, they did not contest the suit. No objection has been raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court in the suit. The said suit has been decreed on 27.7.1998. The execution petition has been filed in the year 2006, after a lapse of 18 years and I.A. No. 8 has been filed invoking section 151 of C.P.C. seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the court to pass the decree. Such an objection cannot be raised after a lapse of 18 years of the decree.

The law laid down by the Supreme Court and this court, it is very clear that objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the first instance and not after passing the judgment and decree, I.A. No. 8 appears to have been filed in order to drag on the proceedings though the decree has been passed in the year 1998 itself. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.