Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1714 (ALL)

Devi Prasad v. Munni Lal

2016-05-04

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of Civil Judge (S.D.) dated 21.01.2016, dismissing objection of the petitioner under Section 47 C.P.C. and Additional District Judge dated 07.04.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 3. Munni Lal (the respondent) filed an application (registered as Case No. 42/90 of 1990) under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for release of the shop in dispute from possession of the petitioner, on 04.10.1990, before Civil Judge (J.D.) Hamirpur. Munsarim submitted his report dated 16.08.1991 that release application has to be filed before Prescribed Authority and Civil Judge (J.D.) concerned had not been assigned jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority under the Act. District Judge, by order dated 31.08.1991 transferred the case to Civil Judge (S.D.), who after hearing the parties, allowed release application by order dated 16.05.1996. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal against aforesaid order, which was allowed by order dated 05.08.2008, on the ground that trial was conducted by Civil Judge (S.D.), who had no jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority under Act. The respondent filed a writ petition (registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57963 of 2008), which was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 13.03.2014. The order of appellate court was set aside and order of Civil Judge (S.D.) was restored. 5. The respondent filed an application (registered as Execution Case No. 6 of 2014) for execution of release order dated 16.05.1996. The petitioner filed an objection (registered as Misc. Case No. 62/74 of 2014) under Section 47 C.P.C. stating therein that release order is a nullity in as much as concerned Civil Judge (S.D.) had not been assigned jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority under the Act. As such decree is not executable. Civil Judge (S.D.) after hearing the parties, by order dated 21.01.2016, held that the petitioner had raised this ground in his writ petition which was allowed ignoring this ground as such at present this Court is not competent to go behind the decree. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the petitioner. As such decree is not executable. Civil Judge (S.D.) after hearing the parties, by order dated 21.01.2016, held that the petitioner had raised this ground in his writ petition which was allowed ignoring this ground as such at present this Court is not competent to go behind the decree. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Civil Revision No. 7 of 2016) against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, by order dated 07.04.2016. Hence, these petitions have been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that from report of Munsarim dated 16.08.1991, is clear that release application was not filed before Prescribed Authority. Administrative order of District Judge, dated 31.08.1991 transferring the case to Civil Judge (S.D.), would not confer jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority in him. Trial of release application as well as order dated 16.05.1996, allowing it was without jurisdiction and the order is nullity. Release order is not executable. Objection of the petitioner has been illegally dismissed. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises (1999), 1 SCC 558. 7. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. In paragraph-2 of the objection under Section 47 C.P.C., the petitioner has stated that Sri Rajan Chaudhary, Civil Judge (S.D.) Hamirpur, was notified as Prescribed Authority under the Act, on 26.04.1996. Release order was passed by him on 16.05.1996. Before him the petitioner has not raised issue relating to his jurisdiction to hear the release application. Thus on the date of passing release order, he had jurisdiction of Prescribed Authority and release order cannot be said as nullity. Supreme Court in Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) v. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 521 , held that even if the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as filed, if by reason of subsequent events the Court has lost jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit, the Court will not be justified in dealing with the suit with reference to circumstances as they existed at the date of the institution of the suit, but must proceed to decide the dispute on the footing that if the suit had been filed at the later date, the Court would have been incompetent to grant the reliefs. Normally a court must have regard to circumstances existing as at the date when the issue of jurisdiction is tried and must decide it in the light of circumstances existing as at that date.". Again inSudhir G. Angur v. M. Sanjeev, (2006) 1 SCC 141 , held that if a court has jurisdiction to try the suit, when it comes on for disposal, it then cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction by reason of the fact that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it at the date when it was instituted. 8. The counsel for the petitioner stated that one year time may be granted for vacating the shop in dispute. Since release order was passed on 16.05.1996 as such the petitioner is granted four months' time to vacate the premises in dispute and hand over its possession to the respondent provided that he files an undertaking in this respect before the Executing Court within 15 days from today. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The petition has no merit and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.