IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123)

Date of Decision:-19.01.2026 ASHOK KUMAR … Petitioner Versus GURJINDER SINGH ... Respondent -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. G.S. Salana, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 12.11.2025, whereby, the Executing Court has dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner. Respondent filed a suit for specific performance to execute the agreement to sell dated 22.04.2008 pertaining to the suit property situated within the area of Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. Suit was filed at Civil Court Ropar, whereas Kharar falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts, Kharar. Suit was partly decreed for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest. Respondent filed an execution petition at Civil Court Ropar, which was transferred to Civil Court, Kharar for execution. Petitioner preferred objection petition contending that the decree is not executable as the same has not been passed by the Court having competent jurisdiction. Learned Executing Court dismissed the objection petition vide impugned order.

2. Learned counsel contended that in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kiran Singh and others versus Chaman Paswan and others, 1954 AIR SC, 340, a defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree and the defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties. In that case, objection was raised as to the competence of the Court of District Judge to hear appeal after amendment of the valuation of the suit and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that we are satisfied that no prejudice was caused to the appellants while their appeal having been heard by the District Court. There was a fair and full hearing of the appeal by the Court. It gave its decision on merits on a consideration of entire evidence in the case and no injustice is shown to have been resulted in its disposal of the matter so merely on account of defect in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the judgment was not held to be illegal.

3. This Court has held in Niranjan Lal (Dead) by his Legal Representatives versus Chhotey Lal, 1989 (1) RCR (Rent) 132 that objection with regard to jurisdiction has to be raised at the first available opportunity as per the provisions of Section 21 of Civil Procedure Code and that where objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was not raised at the earliest, the same cannot be taken before a Court executing the decree, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. Similar findings were recorded in Narain Kumar versus Neki Ram and others, 1984 (1) RCR (Rent) 362.

4. In Radhey Sham versus Gobind Lal and others, 1989 (2) RCR (Rent) 343, again it was held that when objection was not taken with regard to the jurisdiction in the suit, the same cannot be taken in execution.

It was held as under:-

“Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that no objection to the place of suing should be allowed by the appellate or revisional Court, unless there was a consequent failure of justice. The objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction was not raised in the suit by the contesting defendants it could not be raised in the execution proceedings.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Subhash Mahadevasa Habib versus Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 662 as under:-

“24. What is relevant in this context is the legal effect of the so- called finding in O.S. No. 4 of 1972 that the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1971 was passed by a court which had no pecuniary jurisdiction to pass that decree. The C ode of Civil Procedure has made a distinction between lack of inherent jurisdiction and objection to territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas, an inherent lack of jurisdiction may make a decree passed by that court one without jurisdiction or