Judgment-Debtor’s Bid To Dismiss Execution For Filing In Wrong Court Fails; P&H HC Upholds Transfer To Competent Court

The respondent instituted a third execution petition before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi.

The petitioner objected that the court lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree and sought dismissal of the execution proceedings, relying on Sections 37, 38, 39, 42 and 151 CPC.

The Civil Judge referred the matter to the District Judge, who withdrew the execution petition and transferred it to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi.

The petitioner challenged those orders under Article 227, seeking dismissal of the execution petition or a reasoned decision on the pending jurisdictional objection before execution proceeded.

Under the principle applied by the Court, proceedings instituted before a court lacking jurisdiction should not be dismissed solely on that ground; the court may return them for presentation before the competent court or make an appropriate reference to the District Judge for withdrawal and entrustment to a competent court.

The Court also considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the transfer would warrant interference only if it involved illegality or material irregularity.

Sections 37, 38, 39, 42 and 151 CPC were cited by the petitioner in support of the objection; the judgment did not separately interpret those provisions.

The Civil Judge considered that it lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree and referred the execution petition to the District Judge.

The District Judge then transferred it to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), which the High Court found competent to execute the decree.

The Court held that this was an appropriate alternative to returning the petition for presentation before the competent court.

Because the transfer involved neither illegality nor material irregularity, the Court found no basis for intervention under Article 227.

It dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merit and clarified that its observations did not determine the merits of the underlying dispute or prejudice the parties’ rights and contentions in other proceedings.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.