Delhi High Court – Orders
Ms. Amina Begum (Since Deceased) … vs Sh. Parmanand on 15 April, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 906/2023
MS. AMINA BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS &
ANR .....Appellants
Through: Counsel (appearance not given).
versus
SH. PARMANAND .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 15.04.2025
CM APPL. 21498/2025 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed-of.
CM APPL. 21497/2025
By way of the present application filed under Order 41 Rule
5 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC‘),
the applicants/appellants seek stay of the impugned judgment and
decree dated 23.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as well as waiver of cost of Rs.
10,000/- imposed vide order dated 29.03.2025 in execution
proceedings bearing No. 132/23, whereby the appellants’ objections
to the execution proceedings were dismissed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit, that their
principal contention in the appeal is that the learned Trial Court had
RFA 906/2023 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/04/2025 at 00:47:44
no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or decide the suit, since the suit
property i.e., property bearing No. F-1/79 DDA Flat, Special Housing
Scheme, Sunder Nagari, Nand Nagari, Delhi, is situate outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court.
3. Upon being queried, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
informs the court that the appellants have been in possession of the
subject property and are claiming ownership based on a set of
documents comprising a general power of attorney, agreement to sell,
affidavit and a Will dated 17.08.2007 and other related documents,
based on which possession of the subject property was delivered to
the appellants.
4. Furthermore, learned counsel candidly admits that objection as to
territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial court was never taken during
entire course of the trial from 2008 until the passing of judgment and
decree dated 23.12.2021.
5. A plain reading of section 21 of CPC shows that an objection to the
territorial jurisdiction of a court is required to be taken in the court of
first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. Section 21 of CPC
reads as follows :
21. Objections to jurisdiction.– (1) No objection as to the
place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional
Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first
instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where
issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has
been a consequent failure of justice.
(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with
reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed
by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was
taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible
RFA 906/2023 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/04/2025 at 00:47:44
opportunity, and, in all cases where issues are settled, at or before
such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of
justice.
(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court
with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed
by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was
taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and
unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. The aforementioned position of law has been reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance
Co. Ltd.,1 in the following terms:
“12. In Mantoo Sarkar [(2009) 2 SCC 244], the Insurance
Company had a branch at Nainital. The accident took place outside
the jurisdiction of Nainital Tribunal. The claimant remained in the
hospital at Bareilly and thereafter shifted to Pilibhit where he was
living for a long time. However, at the time of filing of the claim
petition he was working as a labourer in Nainital District. The High
Court took the view that Nainital Tribunal had no jurisdiction and
reversed the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that since the
office of the Insurance Company was at Nainital, the Tribunal had
the jurisdiction. This Court reversed the view of the High Court. It
was held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was wider than the
civil court. The Tribunal could follow the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure (CPC). Having regard to Section 21 CPC,
objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction could not be entertained
in the absence of any prejudice. Distinction was required to be
drawn between a jurisdiction with regard to subject-matter on the
one hand and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction on the
other. A judgment may be nullity in the former category, but not in
the latter.
1
(2016) 3 SCC 43
RFA 906/2023 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/04/2025 at 00:47:45
“13. Reference was also made to the earlier decision of this
Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [AIR 1954 SC 340] to the
following effect : (Mantoo Sarkar case [(2009) 2 SCC 244, SCC p.
250, para 21)
“21. … ’17. … “7. … With reference to objections
relating to territorial jurisdiction, Section 21 of the Civil
Procedure Code enacts that no objection to the place of
suing should be allowed by an appellate or revisional court,
unless there was a consequent failure of justice. It is the
same principle that has been adopted in Section 11 of the
Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction.
The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 CPC and Section
11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that
when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and
judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed
purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in
failure of justice, and the policy of the legislature has been
to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and
pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an
appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the
merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the
decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should
be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11
of the Suits Valuation Act.” (Kiran Singh case [AIR 1954 SC
340] , AIR p. 342, para 7)” “
(emphasis supplied)
7. In the circumstances, this court finds no merit in the present
application, which is accordingly dismissed.
RFA 906/2023
8. Re-notify on 15th May 2025, the date already fixed.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
APRIL 15, 2025/akRFA 906/2023 Page 4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/04/2025 at 00:47:45