Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction Must Be Timely; Lack of Jurisdiction Must Be Evident

The Supreme Court held that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and do not impact the inherent jurisdiction of the civil court. The lack of territorial jurisdiction should be apparent on the face of the record to challenge a decree. The High Court's decision directing the executing court to consider territorial jurisdiction objections was overturned. The executing court was instructed to promptly conclude the execution proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. Validity of the Decree
3. Execution Proceedings
4. Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction
5. Legislative Mandate under Section 21 of CPC

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The primary issue revolves around whether the court at Ranchi had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the partition suit. The appellant argued that an objection to territorial jurisdiction does not relate to the inherent jurisdiction of the civil court and must be raised at the earliest opportunity before the court of first instance. The respondent contended that the lack of territorial jurisdiction is an objection to the subject matter, which can be raised at any stage, including execution.

2. Validity of the Decree:
The respondent filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the validity of the decrees (preliminary decree dated 13 June 1990, final decree dated 5 April 1991, and supplementary final decree dated 18 December 2013) on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The executing court dismissed these objections, stating that it cannot go behind the decree unless the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record.

3. Execution Proceedings:
The appellant initiated execution proceedings for the final decree at Ranchi. The respondent objected, arguing that the decrees were nullities due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction. The executing court dismissed these objections, but the High Court reversed this decision, directing the executing court to entertain the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.

4. Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 21 of CPC, emphasizing that objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity in the court of first instance. The court noted that such objections do not go to the root of the court's inherent jurisdiction and must show a consequent failure of justice to be entertained.

5. Legislative Mandate under Section 21 of CPC:
The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 21(1) of CPC mandates that objections to the place of suing must be raised at the earliest opportunity and must demonstrate a consequent failure of justice. The court referred to precedents, including Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., to illustrate that objections to territorial jurisdiction are distinct from objections to subject matter jurisdiction and must be timely raised.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in directing the executing court to entertain the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. It held that the objection to territorial jurisdiction does not affect the inherent jurisdiction of the civil court and must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless the lack of jurisdiction is evident on the face of the record. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, directing the executing court to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously.

---