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 tinder Madras Act I 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 IX, Rule 13, C.P.C., 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, C.P.C. to be dealt with in execution vide Zamindar of Ettiyapuram v. Chidambaram
Chetty 39 M.L.J. 203 (F.B.) and Kalipada Sirkar v. Hari Mohan Dalal 21 C.W.N. 1104. 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 7 Bom. L.R. 1 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 734
(P.C.). The rivision petition against the order of the Sub-Collector passed upon the decree-holder''s execution petition is dismissed with costs.