Case Note & Summary
The applicant, M/s. Indrayani Foods Ltd., entered into an agreement to sell two properties in Satara district to the respondent, PamPac Machines Pvt. Ltd., for a total consideration of Rs. 3,60,00,000, with Rs. 60,00,000 paid at execution. Clause 22 of the agreement provided that any dispute shall be subject to the jurisdiction of courts at Pune. The respondent filed Special Suit No. 886/2008 in the Pune Civil Court for specific performance. The applicant filed an application under Section 9A CPC on 28 July 2008 objecting to territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the properties were in Satara. However, before the jurisdiction issue was decided, the parties entered into a compromise, and a consent decree was passed on 30 April 2009 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The respondent then filed execution proceedings (Special Darkhast No. 42/2010) in the Satara court, as the properties were located there. The applicant filed objections (Exhibits 28 and 31) in the execution proceedings, again raising the territorial jurisdiction issue. The executing court rejected those objections on 30 April 2011. The applicant filed a civil revision under Section 115 CPC before the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the applicant had waived the jurisdiction objection by consenting to the compromise decree without pressing the Section 9A application. The executing court cannot go behind the decree, and the decree is binding unless set aside on grounds available under contract law. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Waiver by Consent Decree - Section 115, Section 9A, Order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The applicant challenged the execution of a compromise decree on the ground that the Pune court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the property was in Satara. The court held that the objection to jurisdiction was waived when the applicant consented to the compromise decree without pressing the jurisdiction issue. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Objections to Jurisdiction - Section 115, Section 9A, Order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The applicant's objection under Section 9A CPC was not decided before the compromise decree was passed. The court held that by consenting to the decree, the applicant waived the right to raise the jurisdiction objection in execution proceedings. The executing court is bound by the decree and cannot re-open the issue. (Paras 11-20)
C) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Binding Nature - Order 23 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A compromise decree is a contract between parties and is binding unless set aside on grounds available under contract law. The court held that the decree was validly passed and the executing court cannot entertain objections that could have been raised before the decree. (Paras 21-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the executing court can go behind the decree and entertain objections to territorial jurisdiction after a compromise decree has been passed, and whether the objection under Section 9A CPC was waived by the applicant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application with no order as to costs, upholding the order of the executing court rejecting the applicant's objections.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- waiver of objection by consent decree
- execution of compromise decree
- Section 115 CPC
- Section 9A CPC
- Order 23 Rule 3 CPC
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 49
Civil Revision Application No. 472 of 2011
Mr. Girish Kulkarni, with Mr. Anand Lavate and Mr. Hrishikesh Amembal, Ms. Swati Deshmukh i/by Mr. Sandeep Waghmare for the Applicant/petitioner. Mr. N. H. Seervai, Senior Advocate along with Mr. J.P. Sen, Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocates i/by M/s. Bachubhai Munim & Co. for the Respondent.
M/s. Indrayani Foods Ltd.
PamPac Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision against order rejecting objections to execution of a compromise decree in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the order dated 30 April 2011 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara below Exhibits 28 and 31 in Special Darkhast No.42 of 2010, which rejected the applicant's objections to the execution proceeding.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the compromise decree was passed by the Pune court without jurisdiction as the property was situated in Satara, and the executing court should have upheld the objection.
Previous Decisions
The executing court (IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara) rejected the applicant's objections (Exhibits 28 and 31) on 30 April 2011.
Issues
Whether the executing court can go behind the decree and entertain objections to territorial jurisdiction after a compromise decree has been passed.
Whether the objection under Section 9A CPC was waived by the applicant by consenting to the compromise decree.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the Pune court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the property was in Satara, and the objection under Section 9A CPC was not decided before the compromise decree, so it could be raised in execution.
The respondent argued that the applicant waived the jurisdiction objection by consenting to the compromise decree, and the executing court cannot go behind the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
A party who consents to a compromise decree waives all objections to jurisdiction that were not pressed before the decree. The executing court cannot go behind the decree and must execute it as it stands. The decree is binding unless set aside on grounds available under contract law.
Judgment Excerpts
The parties hereto agree that in case of any dispute and/or differences arising out of and in respect of the interpretation of the terms and conditions hereof, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Pune.
The Applicant/Petitioner(original Defendant)(judgment debtor) by this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has challenged the order dated 30 April 2011 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara below Exhibits 28 and 31 in Special Darkhast No.42 of 2010, whereby both these applications raising objection to the execution proceeding instituted by the Respondent (original Plaintiff) (decree holder) based upon a compromise decree, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune have been rejected.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Special Suit No. 886/2008 on 30 April 2008 in the Pune Civil Court for specific performance. The applicant filed an application under Section 9A CPC on 28 July 2008 objecting to territorial jurisdiction. Before the jurisdiction issue was decided, the parties entered into a compromise, and a consent decree was passed on 30 April 2009. The respondent filed execution proceedings (Special Darkhast No. 42/2010) in the Satara court. The applicant filed objections (Exhibits 28 and 31) which were rejected on 30 April 2011. The applicant filed Civil Revision Application No. 472 of 2011 in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 19 October 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Section 9A, Order 23 Rule 3
