Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said in a case where a court has failed to check its jurisdiction and a plea has been raised subsequently on it, that too after receiving an adverse verdict, the forum should not be declared as the one having lack of jurisdiction, especially when there is no apparent injury otherwise to the rights conferred under a particular statute. 

"Every case is a journey towards truth. A procedural law, as repeatedly settled by this court, is a handmaid of justice. There is an inherent sense of equity and fair play in the proceedings of the court. When a lis is entertained it is the paramount duty of the court to check on itself and satisfy the existence of jurisdiction, despite being not raised by the parties," a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra said.

Such an exercise would not only prevent injustice but will also take care of a party taking advantage of its own wrong, court has said, while adding that a forum has to apply the principle of 'nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria' (no man can take advantage of his own wrong) in order to prevent any miscarriage of justice. 

"When the court is satisfied that one party to the dispute is manipulating the process to perpetuate illegality and to the detriment of the other, it should go beyond the procedural entrapment by rendering correct justice," the bench said.

It said the issue of jurisdiction would pale into insignificance when it is sought to be raised as a last straw at a very belated stage. 

"Therefore, when the process becomes the same for both parties who undertake the said route willingly, the question of jurisdiction cannot be put against each other after it has attained finality, unless it is demonstrated that the rights of the party who suffered the decree are obliterated," the bench said.

The court also emphasized that when a statute is amended on an issue pertaining to a forum for adjudication, it being procedural takes effect retrospectively. 

"A party to a lis does not have any vested right of forum as against action. In the absence of any substantive right being subsumed by a particular forum, one has to give retrospective application," bench added. 

The bench also highlighted that the conduct of a party assumes significance. "If a party is likely to have an undue advantage, despite the availability of an opportunity to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction at an earlier point of time, it should not be permitted to do so during the execution proceedings. In other words, a plaintiff shall not be made to suffer by the passive act of the defendant in submitting to the jurisdiction," it said.

With this view, court has set aside the Telangana High Court's order which reversed a decision by an executing court on issue of jurisdiction, despite failure of respondent to raise it and ample opportunity to do it.

After expiry of 33 years lease, the appellant had filed the suit before the Wakf Tribunal seeking ejectment, recovery of possession with arrears in rent and damages. The decree was passed in 2002 and revision petition was dismissed by the HC but the respondents continued to remain in possession. In 2014, execution proceedings were initiated but the respondents still did not raise plea of maintainability. In 2021, the High Court, however, reversed the decision of executing court.

The court set aside the High Court's order, finding, the respondents "have continuously put spokes on the wheels of justice as protracted proceedings have helped them to be in possession for over two decades, notwithstanding the expiry of the lease way back in the year 1999". 

On the High Court's verdict, the bench said, "One has to see the consequence while taking note of the huge pendency of the cases before various Courts in the country. There is no gainsaying that but for the adverse decree suffered, a judgment-debtor would not have ventured to raise such a plea. It is clearly a case of an afterthought to suit his convenience. He cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Though we are conscious about the earlier precedents dealing with the stage at which such a plea can be raised, much water has flown under the bridge in terms of the ground reality". 

Case Title: Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf vs. M/s Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt Ltd & Ors