KHANJI KASHARI KHANJI Vs. GULAM RASUL CHANDBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising from execution proceedings. The respondent has obtained a decree for money and is seeking to execute it by appointment of a receiver of what he called the land revenue of certain lands in the former principality of Vajiria. The appellant, who was the former Ruler of the State, contended in the first instance that the decree which had been obtained in this case by the respondent was without jurisdiction. He said that in the second instance the amount of which the respondent prayed that a receiver should be appointed was a pension and was exempt from attachment under the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C. and Section 11, Pensions Act, and in case it could not be attached, no receiver could also be appointed, in respect of it. The learned trial Judge has held that the decree which had been obtained by the respondent was not void for want of jurisdiction. He has indeed accepted that the amount, of which the respondent sought for the appointment of a receiver, was exempt from attachment under the provisions of Section 60 as well as Section 11, Pensions Act; but he said that even so there was no difficulty with regard to the appointment of a receiver. The appellant has come in appeal, and the first point which is made before me is that the decree in this case was without jurisdiction.

(2.) The respondent attempts to meet this contention by pointing out that the appellant did not raise any contention about jurisdiction in the suit, and he says that now that the Court has passed a decree, this question cannot he gone into in execution. It appears, however, that their Lordships of the Privy Council have decided now once for all that Section 86, Civil P. C. is based upon public policy, and it was not open, therefore, to any Ruling Chief to waive the provisions of that section. His failure to object to jurisdiction consequently would not render the decree as one which had been passed by a Court which had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) The appellant points next to the ruling of this Court in -- 'Ladkuvarbai v. Ghoel Shri Sar-sangji Pratabsangji', 7 Bom HCR 150 (A), in which it was held that if a decree was passed without jurisdiction the Court may not agree to lend its assistance where the assistance was necessary, e.g., by way of an order to issue notice to show cause under Order 21, Rule 22, if it discovers subsequently that the decree which it had passed was one without jurisdiction. In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into this question in the present appeal, for the reason that I do not think that the decree was void for want of jurisdiction.