### Territorial Jurisdiction Objections Under Section 21 CPC Cannot Be Raised For The First Time At Appellate Stage Case Summary: * Core Issue: The Appellant challenged an ex-parte eviction decree, primarily arguing that the Trial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that she was never properly served. * Court's Ruling on Jurisdiction: The High Court, affirming the District Judge's findings, held that under Section 21(1) of the CPC, objections to the "place of suing" must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the court of first instance. Since the Appellant failed to raise this in her Order IX Rule 13 application and demonstrated no "consequent failure of justice," the objection was waived. * Service and Identity: The Court rejected claims of misdescription of identity, noting the Appellant had signed the Rent Agreement and Tenant Verification Form. It further observed that service by affixation was valid, especially as the Appellant acknowledged receiving execution notices through the same method. * Conduct of Appellant: The Court severely criticized the Appellant for re-entering the premises by breaking locks after the decree was executed, terming it criminal trespass. * Conclusion: Finding no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, the Court dismissed the Second Appeal, upholding the eviction and recovery of arrears.

The Respondent (landlord) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the Appellant (tenant) regarding property 316-B, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi

A rent agreement was executed in 2016 at ₹7,000/month, later enhanced to ₹8,500/month

The Respondent alleged defaults in rent from June 2019 and document theft by the Appellant’s purported husband

Summons were served via WhatsApp and affixation, but the Appellant failed to appear and was proceeded ex-parte

The Trial Court (ASCJ) decreed the suit on 01.10.2021

The Appellant’s subsequent application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed on 01.03.2023

The First Appellate Court upheld this dismissal on 02.08.2024

Notably, after being evicted through a court bailiff, the Appellant allegedly broke back into the premises and resumed illegal occupation

1. Whether the judgment was void for lack of territorial jurisdiction as the property was in District South-East but the suit was tried in District South?

2. Whether there was a failure of due service of summons upon the Appellant?

3. Whether the mis-description of the Appellant’s name and marital status/husband's identity affected the validity of the decree?

The Court applied Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandates that objections to the "place of suing" must be raised at the earliest opportunity in the court of first instance, or they are waived unless a failure of justice is proven

It relied on Pathumma v. Kuntalan Kutty (1981) 3 SCC 589 and K.P. Ranga Rao v. K.V. Venkatesham (2015) 13 SCC 514, which establish that territorial jurisdiction objections cannot be raised at the appellate or execution stage

The Court also applied Section 100 of the CPC, which restricts Regular Second Appeals only to cases involving a "substantial question of law"

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting the Appellant failed to raise it in the Trial Court or even in the Order 9 Rule 13 application; thus, per Section 21 CPC, the objection was barred

Regarding service, the Court found the Appellant had been duly served by affixation—the same method through which she received execution notices—and noted the dismissal of her Order 9 Rule 13 appeal had attained finality

On the merits, the Court held that mis-description of her name (Arti Sharma vs. Arti Tiwari) or her husband's identity (Alok Thakur) was irrelevant because her status as a tenant under the 2016 Rent Agreement and Tenant Verification Form was clearly established

Payment records (NEFT) confirmed the involvement of Alok Thakur in the tenancy

Finally, the Court viewed the Appellant's re-entry into the premises after formal eviction as criminal trespass, negating any claim to equitable relief

It held that the relationship of landlord-tenant was established and the rate of rent exceeded ₹3,500, exempting it from rent control protection

The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and all pending applications, upholding the eviction decree and criticizing the Appellant's illegal conduct in re-entering the property