The Judgment of the Court was as follows:—
These appeals are directed against concurrent orders dismissing objections, filed by the Appellants under the provisions of sec. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, to execution of the rent decrees obtained against them. The Respondents contended, firstly, that it was not open to the executing Court to entertain the objection and secondly that the decrees were not passed without jurisdiction.
The Appellant cannot succeed unless the case is brought within the principle laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gorachand Haidar v. Profulla Kumar Roy . The correctness of that decision has been subsequently doubted. The Courts have consistently refused to extend in any way the principle which was enunciated. The principle laid down is in these terms:
“I think it may be said that the correct view, and the view for which there is a strong current of authority, is that where the decree presented for execution was made by a Court which apparently had not jurisdiction, whether pecuniary or territorial or in respect of the judgment-debtor's person, to make the decree, the executing Court is entitled to refuse to execute it on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction.”
The Plaintiff instituted a rent suit against the Appellant. There were three separate holdings and one suit was instituted under the provisions of sec. 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The total claim of the Plaintiff was Rs. 215-6-0. He also made his cosharers pro formâ Defendants. When they joined and put forward claims of their own the total rent claimed was Rs. 1,147-15-6 pies. The basis of the objection of the Appellant is that the. Munsif had no power to try a suit above Rs. 1,000.
I can well understand that if the Munsif passed a decree for Rs. 5,000, it may be said that it was apparently beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. In the present case it is impossible to say whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to make the decree without going into evidence. It may be that he was specially empowered. The learned Munsif, of course, had to make an investigation. The investigation he made was that he searched the Civil List, a document which sometimes contains blunders. In my judgment, the proper course was to call upon the decree-holder to put in the relevant Gazette Notification. Be that as it may, the fact remains that an investigation of some kind had to be made in order to determine whether the objection had any substance or not. It is, therefore, impossible to say that the Munsif who passed the decrees apparently had no jurisdiction. The present case, therefore, goes further than the Full Bench decision and is not covered by it.
Upon this view it is not necessary to discuss the merits of the objection. The appeals are dismissed with costs,—one set to each group of the contesting Respondents,—hearing-fee being assessed at one gold mohur in each appeal.
Let the records be sent down as early as possible.
Leave to appeal under sec. 15 of the Letters Patent is refused.
C.C