Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ravinder Dudeja
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Saraswati Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the learned trial court in Civil Suit No. 267/2023, titled Saraswati Devi Vs. Rakesh Kumar, whereby, the application of the petitioner herein (defendant before the trial court) filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1860 [“Code”] was dismissed. Petitioner herein, has prayed for setting aside the impugned order filed by the trial court mainly on the following two grounds:-
(i) firstly, that the impugned order itself records that trial court does not have the jurisdiction over the suit as undisputedly, the suit properties are not located within the territories of East District, however, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial court erroneously relying upon Section 21 of the Code and construing it as a bar upon the trial court, even though, Section 21 only applies to appellate proceedings.
(ii) secondly, the application of the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed by the learned trial on the ground that objections had been raised at a belated stage, without appreciating the fac
A court lacks jurisdiction over matters involving properties outside its territorial limits, and any decree passed without jurisdiction is null and void.
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need for supervisory correction in exercising jurisdiction.
The court ruled that a trial court lacking territorial jurisdiction must return an application under the DV Act for filing in the appropriate court, emphasizing the Act's purpose to ensure justice.
Objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity, and lack of such objection does not invalidate a decree unless there is a demonstrated failure of justice.
Objections to territorial jurisdiction should be entertained only if there has been a consequent failure of justice, as per Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
A lawful transfer of a suit from a court lacking jurisdiction to a competent court can cure jurisdictional defects without necessitating the return of the plaint, provided no prejudice is demonstrate....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the convenience of both parties, particularly senior citizens, in transfer petitions under Article 227 and Section 24 of the CPC.
The jurisdiction under Section 24 CPC is concurrent between the High Court and District Court, but a party cannot challenge a transfer order in both courts; they must choose one forum.
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
