LI Network
Published on: October 25, 2023 at 13:02 IST
In a significant Supreme Court ruling, the owner of a property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) finally received relief after a prolonged legal battle that began in 2002.
The Court, in a judgment authored by Justice M. M. Sundresh, criticized the delaying tactics employed by respondents and reinstated the order passed by the executing court in favor of the property owner.
The case revolved around the undisputed property owner executing a lease deed for 33 years in favor of another party. When the lease expired, the property owner sought eviction and recovery of possession through legal means.
A decree was granted in 2002, and the property owner filed an execution petition in 2014 after failing to regain possession. Notably, the respondent did not raise any jurisdictional objections until four years after the execution petition.
The Court emphasized that the executing court should not go beyond the decree, and interference should be rare, especially on jurisdictional matters. It pointed out that such objections made after an adverse decree is a case of “approbation and reprobation,” meaning one cannot accept and reject the same thing.
The Court also discussed the retrospective application of statutes related to the forum for adjudication and the need for courts to satisfy themselves about jurisdiction.
It mentioned that no one should be prejudiced by an act of the court, and the forum’s lack of jurisdiction should not be declared if no apparent injury to statutory rights is evident.
In this case, the Court noted that the respondents had hindered justice for over two decades by protracting proceedings. The Wakf Tribunal now has jurisdiction as per the 2013 amendment, and the Court set aside the impugned order, restoring the executing court’s decision in favor of the appellant.
This ruling clarifies the principle that judgment debtors cannot exploit jurisdictional objections at the execution stage.