Case Note & Summary
The present chamber summons arose out of a suit filed by ICICI Ltd, as Debenture Trustees, against Kothri Industrial Corporation Ltd and others for recovery of Rs.6,84,91,000/-. The suit was decreed, and in execution, the court appointed a Receiver who took possession of properties belonging to the judgment debtor, including a property at Hyderabad. The judgment debtor objected to the execution on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree against property situated outside its local limits, relying on sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2002. The court examined the scope of Section 39(4) CPC and held that the provision only prohibits the transfer of a decree for execution to another court if the judgment debtor has objected to the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree. It does not bar the decreeing court from executing its own decree against property outside its local limits. The court further held that the executing court retains jurisdiction to execute its own decree, and the objection raised by the judgment debtor was without merit. The chamber summons was dismissed, and the execution was allowed to proceed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Jurisdiction - Section 39(4) CPC - The court which passed the decree is not barred from executing it against property situated outside its local limits. Section 39(4) CPC only prohibits the transfer of a decree for execution to another court if the judgment debtor has objected to the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree. It does not take away the inherent jurisdiction of the decreeing court to execute its own decree. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Order 21 Rule 89 and Rule 90 CPC - Chamber summons for setting aside sale - The judgment debtor's objection to the execution on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was rejected. The court held that the executing court retains jurisdiction to execute its own decree even if the property is outside its local limits. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court which passed the decree is barred from executing it against property situated outside its local limits by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2002.
Final Decision
The chamber summons was dismissed. The court held that Section 39(4) CPC does not bar the court which passed the decree from executing it against property situated outside its local limits. The execution proceedings were allowed to continue.
Law Points
- Section 39(4) CPC does not bar the court which passed the decree from executing it against property outside its local limits
- Execution court retains jurisdiction to execute its own decree
- Order 21 Rule 89 CPC
- Order 21 Rule 90 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
Case Details
Chamber Summons No. 204 of 2005 in Suit No. 535 of 2000
Virag V. Tulzapurkar with C.S. Kapadia and Ms. Rajashree Bhat i/b M.K. Ambalal and Co. for the plaintiffs; Janak Dwarkadas Sr. Counsel with C. Mody, Mr. Shiva and Ms. S. Kaul i/b R. Miti Law and Associates for the defendants; J.P. Cama with Vimal Bhabhada i/b Ms. Laxmi Jasani for purchasers/respondents; Mr. M.H.I. Patel, Representative of Court Receiver present
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Chamber summons in execution proceedings for setting aside sale and raising objection to jurisdiction of court to execute decree against property outside local limits.
Remedy Sought
The judgment debtor sought to set aside the sale and objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree against property situated outside its local limits.
Filing Reason
The judgment debtor raised a jurisdictional challenge under Section 39(4) CPC to obstruct execution of the decree passed by the Bombay High Court against property located in Hyderabad.
Previous Decisions
A decree was passed in Suit No. 535 of 2000 in favor of the plaintiffs (ICICI Ltd as Debenture Trustees) against the defendants (Kothri Industrial Corporation Ltd and others).
Issues
Whether the court which passed the decree is barred from executing it against property situated outside its local limits by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Amendment Act of 2002.
Submissions/Arguments
The judgment debtor argued that under Section 39(4) CPC, the court which passed the decree cannot execute it against property outside its local limits if the judgment debtor objects to the jurisdiction of that court.
The plaintiffs argued that Section 39(4) CPC only prohibits transfer of the decree to another court for execution if the judgment debtor objects, but does not bar the decreeing court from executing its own decree.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only prohibits the transfer of a decree for execution to another court if the judgment debtor has objected to the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree. It does not take away the inherent jurisdiction of the decreeing court to execute its own decree against property situated outside its local limits. The executing court retains jurisdiction to execute its own decree.
Judgment Excerpts
The present chamber summons is a classic example of how the legitimate claim of a creditor can be defeated by technical and legal wrangles raised by the debtors.
In the present case execution of the decree is sought to be obstructed by raising the issue of jurisdiction of this court by relying upon the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 39 of Civil Procedure Code as amended by amending Act of 2002.
Procedural History
A suit was filed in 2000 by ICICI Ltd as Debenture Trustees against Kothri Industrial Corporation Ltd and others for recovery of dues. The suit was decreed. In execution, the court appointed a Receiver who took possession of properties including a property at Hyderabad. The judgment debtor filed Chamber Summons No. 204 of 2005 under Order 21 Rules 89 and 90 and Section 151 CPC to set aside the sale and object to the jurisdiction of the court to execute the decree against property outside its local limits. The chamber summons was dismissed by the judgment dated 20th April 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 39, Section 151, Order 21 Rule 89, Order 21 Rule 90
