High CourtsSingle Bench(1997) 04 J&K CK 0006

Shakti Motor Transport vs Rimal Das Nemo for the parties

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 7 April 1997 · Citation: (1997) KashLJ 233 : (1997) KashLJ 232

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 · 340 words

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

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

challenged in these proceedings.

I have persued the records. There is no body to assist this court in these proceedings, despite the fact that the matter was listed in the regular cause

list.

The objections which have been raised in this revision provision and the 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.

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

parte 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 tribal 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.

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

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