Territorial jurisdiction objections and affidavit evidence rules determine whether an ex parte decree can survive legal challenge

Territorial jurisdiction objections under Section 21 CPC cannot invalidate a decree unless raised at the earliest opportunity and shown to have caused failure of justice; transfer under Section 24(5) may also cure a case initially presented in a court lacking jurisdiction. By contrast, in ex parte proceedings the plaintiff must still adduce evidence, and affidavits are not evidence unless lawfully permitted under Order 19 Rule 1 CPC. Where no such permission exists and the decree rests only on affidavits, the decree cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the ex parte decree could be treated as a nullity on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction in the court where the suit was originally presented and transferred; (ii) whether the ex parte decree could stand when the plaintiff's case rested only on affidavits not permitted to be read as evidence.

Issue (i): whether the ex parte decree could be treated as a nullity on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction in the court where the suit was originally presented and transferred.

Analysis: Objection as to local jurisdiction is governed by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and cannot succeed in appeal or revision unless it was taken at the earliest opportunity and unless there is consequent failure of justice. The amendment brought by Section 24(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 also enabled transfer of cases even where they were presented in a court lacking jurisdiction. The distinction between a mere territorial defect and a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction was recognised, but on the facts the transfer from one Munsiff Court to another competent court negatived the plea that the decree was a complete nullity.

Conclusion: The territorial jurisdiction objection was not accepted as a ground to treat the decree as a nullity.

Issue (ii): whether the ex parte decree could stand when the plaintiff's case rested only on affidavits not permitted to be read as evidence.

Analysis: Under Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even in ex parte proceedings the plaintiff must lead evidence unless the court dispenses with it in a lawful manner. Under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, affidavits are not evidence by themselves, and under Order 19 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 they can be read only when the court orders proof by affidavit for sufficient reason. As no such permission or supporting material existed, the decree rested solely on affidavits that could not be treated as evidence.

Conclusion: The decree could not be sustained because it was based only on affidavits that were not admissible as evidence in the absence of a lawful order.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the objections of the judgment-debtor were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree cannot be sustained on affidavits alone unless they are permitted to be read as evidence under the procedure prescribed by law, and a territorial-jurisdiction objection does not invalidate the decree unless raised in time and shown to have caused failure of justice.

---