LAWS(DLH)-1971-5-39

ARJAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 28, 1971
ARJAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An exparte decree in favour of Union of India and against Arjan Singh for recovery of Rs. 47,521/7.00 was passed on 14-4-1960 by the Court of Shri V. B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. The Delhi High Court Act, 1966 came into effect from October 31, 1966. On 17-4-1967, the Union of India moved an execution application (O.M. 434/67) in this Court to execute the decree passed by the Court of Shri V. B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi. Notice of this execution application was issued to the judgment debtor, Arjan Singh- After notice had been served on Arjan Singh he moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13(1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the court of Shri V. B. Bansal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, to set aside the exparte decree passed against him. On 21-7-1967 Arjan Singh filed objections to the execution application filed in this Court. The learned Sub Judge sent the application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code moved by Arjan Singh to the High Court on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to take further proceedings in the application after the provisions of the Delhi High Court Act had come into operation. On September 19, 1967 the Deputy Registrar of this Court registered the application of Arjan Singh and ordered notice to the Union of India for 20-10-1967.

(2.) The Union of India filed a reply to the application and, interalia, raised the plea of limitation, Om Parkash, J. on 19-12-1967 framed an issue on the application of Arjan Singh as to whether the same was within time. The Union of India also filed a reply to the objections filed by Arjan Singh against the execution application moved by Union of India. S. N. Andley, J. framed an issue in the execution proceedings as to whether the objections of Arjan Singh were competent and also clarifying the issue framed on the application of Arjan Singh under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether the application for setting aside the exparte decree was within time. Both these matters came up before me, when two points arose for consideration, namely,

(3.) The contention on behalf of Union of India was that the execution application could be filed only in the High Court, even though the decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge, once the provisions of the Delhi High Court Act had come into operation. On the point of the Court competent to entertain and decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure the contention on behalf of Union of India was that it was only the court which passed the decree which could set aside the same. The contention on behalf of Arjan Singh was that once the Subordinate Judge's Court ceased to have pecuniary jurisdiction in suits of the valuation of more than Rs. 25,000.00 and that jurisdiction was conferred on the High Court, this Court could entertain and decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court which originally passed the decree never ceased to have jurisdiction and could also entertain and decide that application. With regard to execution the contention was that the Court which originally passed the decree alone could entertain an execution application. A number of decisions were cited on behalf of both the parties which I considered in my order making a reference to the Full Bench. It is not necessary to recapitulate the entire discussion in that order. As there was a conffict of opinion in the various judicial pronouncements, on a reference being made by me, my Lord Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench to consider the following two questions :-