Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.

Citation:

2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013

Court:

Supreme Court of India

Judges:

Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution.
2. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable.

Background:

• The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar.
• The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of the property.
• The trial court decreed the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC as he failed to file a written statement.
• The subsequent purchasers of the property (respondents 1 to 3) filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC, claiming that the decree was inexecutable as the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Key Sections and Legal Precedents:

• Order VIII Rule 10, CPC: Procedure when a party fails to present a written statement.
• Section 47, CPC: Questions to be determined by the court executing the decree.
• Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (1970) 1 SCC 670: A decree can be objected to in execution proceedings only if it is a nullity.
• Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) 8 SCC 396: Courts must provide reasons when passing a judgment under Order VIII Rule 10, CPC.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court held that the order dated 5th August 1991, and the subsequent decree, were a nullity as the trial court did not adjudicate on its competence to try the suit, which was a jurisdictional error.
• The court emphasized that a judgment must provide reasons for its conclusions, and the trial court’s order did not meet this requirement.
• The decree was thus held to be inexecutable, and the objections under Section 47, CPC, were maintainable.
• The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Executing Court.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court affirmed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, rendering its decree against Samiullah a nullity.
• It upheld the objections under Section 47, CPC, stating that such a decree could be challenged in execution proceedings.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for courts to record their satisfaction and provide reasons when exercising powers under Order VIII Rule 10, CPC.