Back
High Court Of Delhi
S.N.SUNDERSON AND COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
HARBANS SINGH SOBTI AND CO:PRIVATE LIMITED - Respondent
Civil 209D of 1964
Decided On : 09/06/1971
ATTACHMENT OF MONEY - JURISDICTION - ORDER XXI RULE 52 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ATTACH MONEY OUTSIDE ITS TERRITORIAL LIMITS - EXCEPTIONS - ATTACHMENT OF SALARY OR ALLOWANCES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS OR SERVANTS OF RAILWAY COMPANY OR LOCAL AUTHORITY - ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY IN CUSTODY OF COURT OR OFFICER - CONDITIONS - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AS CONDITION PRECEDENT TO EXECUTION OF DECREE - RULE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - APPLICABILITY TO MONEY DECREES - TRANSFER OF DECREE FOR EXECUTION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
The decree-holder filed an execution application against the judgment-debtors seeking to attach the amount due to the judgment-debtors from the Assistant Engineer, Jatog Sub-Division, Himachal Pradesh, Simla. The amount was attached and received by the Commercial Subordinate Judge Delhi from Simla and handed over to the decree-holder. One of the judgment-debtors filed an objection petition under Order XXI rule 58 Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, and an application under Section 39 read with Section 47 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for the restitution of the attached and appropriated amount. The Subordinate Judge held that the Court had no jurisdiction to attach the amount lying outside its territorial jurisdiction and ordered the decree-holder to refund the amount.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Order XXI Rule 52 Civil Procedure Code does not permit the court to issue any notice to a court outside its territorial limits for attachment of property or money which is in the custody of that court or public officer. The Court further held that the rule of territorial jurisdiction which governs suits also governs execution of decrees, and that a court cannot execute a decree in which the subject-matter of the suit or of the application is property situated entirely outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. The Court also held that the attachment of the money in the hands of a garnishee at Simla was an irregularity, but once the money had reached the Court of Subordinate Judge at Delhi and the garnishee had not objected to it nor had the judgment-debtor raised any objection to the attachment of the money, the Court could certainly award the amount to the decree-holder.
Issues: 1. Whether a court has jurisdiction to attach money lying outside its territorial jurisdiction? 2. Whether Order XXI Rule 52 Civil Procedure Code permits the court to issue any notice to a court outside its territorial limits for attachment of property or money which is in the custody of that court or public officer? 3. Whether the rule of territorial jurisdiction which governs suits also governs execution of decrees? 4. Whether a court can execute a decree in which the subject-matter of the suit or of the application is property situated entirely outside the local limits of its jurisdiction? 5. Whether the attachment of the money in the hands of a garnishee at Simla was an irregularity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A court does not have jurisdiction to attach money lying outside its territorial jurisdiction. 2. Order XXI Rule 52 Civil Procedure Code does not permit the court to issue any notice to a court outside its territorial limits for attachment of property or money which is in the custody of that court or public officer. 3. The rule of territorial jurisdiction which governs suits also governs execution of decrees. 4. A court cannot execute a decree in which the subject-matter of the suit or of the application is property situated entirely outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. 5. The attachment of the money in the hands of a garnishee at Simla was an irregularity.
Final Decision: The revision petition was accepted, and the second part of the order made by the subordinate Judge was set aside. The decree-holder was allowed to retain the money in execution of the decree.
( 1 ) AN interesting question of law with regard to the attachment of money lying with a public servant outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree, has been raised in this case.
( 2 ) THE decree-holder filed an execution application against the judgment- debtors in which he sought to attach the amount due to the judgment-debtors from the Assistant Engineer, Jatog Sub-Division, Himachal Pradesh, Simla. On the execution application, this amount was attached and received by the Commercial Subordinate Judge Delhi from Simla and the same was handed over to the decree-holder. One of the judgement-debtors, Shri Harbans Singh Sobti, Managing Director of Harbans Singh Sobti and Co. Private Limited, filed an objection petition under Order XXI rule 58 Civil Procedure Code and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. At the same time another application under Section 39 read with Secclion 47 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code was filed for the restitution of the attached and appropriated amount of Rs. 850. 00 to Messers Harbans Singh Sobti and Co. , judgment-debtor No. 1. A preliminary point was raised in this application that the Court had no jurisdiction to attach the amount lying outside the territorial limits of its own jurisdiction and that the decree-holder had to apply for the transfer of the decree to the Courts at Simla to attach the amount in question. On this ground it was stated that the attached amount could not have been attached by the Court and that the same be refunded to Messers H. S. Sobti and Co.
( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate judge did not deal with the objection raised by H. S. Sobti and Co. that the amount was not due to Harbans Singh Sobti and Co. Private Limited but was due to a partnership firm which was distinct from the limited liability company. He proceeded on the assumption that the amount was due to the partnership firm, which was impleaded as judgment-debtor No. 1.
( 4 ) THE sole question for determination therefore was whether the Court of the commerical Subordinate Judge at Delhi had jurisdiction to attach the amount lying outside the jurisdiction of that Court and if that Court had authority what would be the effect of the same. Learned Subordinate Judge observed that if the garnishee was out-side the jurisdiction of the Court and the amount was also payable outside its jurisdiction no prohibitory order could be made against the garnishee unless it was specifically provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the department concerned had its office at Simla and the amount was payable to the judgment debtor at Simla This Court, therefore, according to the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction at Simla. Learned Subordinate Judge also held that even if it was presumed that the attachemnt was against the judgment- debtor, Harbans Singh Sobti and Co and not under Order XXI Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure then too the Court would have no jurisdiction to attach the amount at Simla. Relying upon a Full Bench decision, of the Madras High Court in Vasireddi Srimanthu and two others Vs Devabhaktuni Venkatappayya and another (ILR 1948 Madras 18) (1) where it was held that when a property sought to be attached is outside the jurisdiction of the Court which passes the decree the Court cannot attach it, but it must transfer the case to the Court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.
( 5 ) IN this view of the matter the learned subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the order of attachment passed by him attaching the amount in the hands of the Assistant Engineer, Himachal Pradesh P. W. D. Simla was an act of the Court without jurisdiction and as such he made an order directing the decree-holder to refund the amount of Rs. 850. 00 under Section 47 as well as under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code.
( 6 ) AGAINST that order the decree-holder filed this revision petition and it is a matter of some regret that the petition which w
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
