High CourtsSingle Bench(1997) 07 J&K CK 0016

Shakti Motor Transport vs Bimal Das

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 3 July 1997 · Citation: (1997) SriLJ 281

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.Q.Parray, J
CASE NUMBER
Civ. Rev. No. 195/1985

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 349 words
1.

This revision has been filed against the order purported to have been passed by the Execution court in execution proceedings, whereunder the

execution proceedings have been registered and orders for attachment of the judgement debtor's property have been ordered. This order is being

challenged in these proceedings.

2.I have perused the records. There is nobody to assist this court in the proceedings, despite the fact that the matter was listed in the regular cause

list.

3.

The objections which have been raised in this revision proceedings are available to be raised by the judgment debtor in execution proceedings

under relevant provision and the executing court has to appreciate it and pass appropriate orders. The objection regarding jurisdiction of the court

having passed the decree is also to be appreciated by the executing court and not to be projected in these revision proceedings. The judgment

debtor should have caused his appearance in the civil suit which was filed against him at the relevant time in the court below and he should have

raised all these objections, which under law were available to him.

4.

It seems that in the suit which was filed against the judgment debtor, he has not chosen to appear and infact has allowed the court to proceed

exparte against him which resulted in the passing of the decree. The contention that as per conditions of Transportation of goods, the dispute was

cognizable and triable only by certain court, is not well conceived. It is not the act of the parties which will confer jurisdiction of the court, but it is

the Statute which confers jurisdiction to the court, territorial as well as pecuniary, and the court in whose territorial jurisdiction, cause of action has

arisen, has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter, keeping under consideration pecuniary limits of the claim.

5.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find that there is any force in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed. Records be send back to

the executing court for proceeding in the matter in accordance with law, after summoning the parties.