A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court reviewed the jurisdictional issues raised by respondents concerning a decree passed by the Trial Court under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 against defendant Samiullah for failure to file a written statement. The decree, claimed to be inexecutable, was challenged under Section 47, CPC, as it allegedly lacked jurisdiction. The Trial Court’s decision to proceed without assessing jurisdictional competency or Kazmi’s objections led to its decree against Samiullah being deemed void ab initio and inexecutable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, reiterating that judgments lacking jurisdictional basis are non-est and incapable of execution.

Keywords: Jurisdictional error, Executability, Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, Inherent Jurisdiction, Nullity of Decree

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgment Cause Title: Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013
• iii) Judgment Date: 12 January 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Justices B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta, Aravind Kumar
• vi) Author: Justice Dipankar Datta
• vii) Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 517 : 2024 INSC 36
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Order VIII, Rules 5 & 10 CPC, Section 47 CPC, Section 229B & 331 UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 2(9) & Order XX CPC.
• ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None indicated.
• x) Related Law Subjects: Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Execution of Decrees, Specific Relief, Land Reforms

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellants initiated a suit for an injunction on the claim of peaceful possession over property purportedly gifted by their ancestor. The suit faced jurisdictional challenges under Order VIII, Rule 10, CPC, upon Samiullah’s failure to file a written statement, resulting in an ex parte decree. The High Court ruled this decree inexecutable due to jurisdictional errors, prompting appellants’ appeal to the Supreme Court, which examined the validity of the decree under Section 47 CPC, focusing on the jurisdictional scope of the executing court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appellants claimed that their great-grandmother had orally gifted them property, recorded with a memorandum. Kazmi, a descendant, contested this, asserting his own rights and barring other defendants from involvement.
2. Appellants filed a suit seeking an injunction to restrain interference. Kazmi contested, citing Section 331, UPZA & LR Act, 1950 and Section 41(h), Specific Relief Act, barring civil jurisdiction.
3. The Trial Court, invoking Order VIII, Rules 5 & 10, CPC, decreed the suit against Samiullah upon his failure to file a written statement, without addressing jurisdictional objections.
4. Upon Kazmi’s death, respondents acquired the property and raised Section 47 CPC objections, arguing the decree’s non-executability based on jurisdictional flaws.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Trial Court’s order dated 05.08.1991, decreeing the suit under Order VIII, Rule 10, CPC, without jurisdictional inquiry, rendered the decree void and inexecutable.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellants contended that the Trial Court’s judgment and the resulting decree under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC, had attained finality as Samiullah had adequate opportunity to respond but failed to do so.
2. The Trial Court’s decision to proceed under Order VIII, Rule 10 without written submissions was argued to be valid and binding, with no grounds for executing court review under Section 47, CPC.
3. Appellants argued that Kazmi’s and Samiullah’s act of transferring property contravened Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, making any alienation void during the suit.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Respondents argued that the decree lacked jurisdictional basis as the Trial Court did not examine its competency or address Kazmi’s objections.
2. They argued that the decree was void for failure to constitute a judgment under Section 2(9) CPC, lacking necessary findings or reasoning, thus failing as a valid decree.
3. Respondents relied on Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan and Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin, contending that decrees without jurisdiction are null and void ab initio.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

i. The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court’s decree, issued without addressing jurisdictional questions and lacking a substantive judgment, was void and inexecutable.

b. Obiter Dicta

i. A decree under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC must meet the requirements of a “judgment” under Section 2(9) CPC and include reasoned findings.

c. Guidelines

i. Executing Court Review: Executing courts may assess jurisdictional errors where decrees lack inherent jurisdiction. ii. Rule of Jurisdiction: Trial courts must establish jurisdiction at suit commencement, particularly where maintainability challenges arise. iii. Judgment Requirements: Decrees must derive from judgments with clear, reasoned articulation per Section 2(9) CPC and Order XX, Rule 4(2) CPC.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case underscores the judiciary’s duty to address jurisdictional competency before decreeing ex parte against a defendant under Order VIII, Rule 10, CPC. The Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to procedural mandates, specifically the distinction between inherent jurisdiction and procedural errors, validating the executing court’s limited power to question jurisdiction when decrees are non-est.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) 8 SCC 396
• Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin (2004) 1 SCC 287
• Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University (2001) 6 SCC 534

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
• Specific Relief Act, 1963
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882