AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Spencer, J.—An objection was raised to the execution of a decree in a suit for rent under Madras Act 1 of 1908 in which the petitioner did
not appear and defend himself against the plaintiff''s claim, the ground of the objection being that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The
defence of want of jurisdiction is one that should have been raised at the trial of the suit itself. After the passing of the decree, the defendant''s only
course was to apply under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to have the ex parte decree against him vacated and the suit re-heard. An
objection to the jurisdiction of the Court that tried the suit is not one of the questions arising between the parties to the suit and relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree which are allowed by Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, to be dealt with in execution [vide
Zamindar of Ettiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty ILR (1920) M 675 and Kalipada Sarkar v. Hari Mohan Dalai ILR (1916) C 627. As the
petitioner was in fact a party to the suit, though not represented at the trial, he cannot invoke the authority of the Privy Council decision in
Khiarajmal v. Daim ILR (1904) C 296The Revision Petition against the order of the Sub-Collector passed upon the decree-holder''s execution
petition is dismissed with costs.