KRISHANLATA SURESHCHANDRA SHARMA Vs. ANIL KUMAR SHANKARRAO DHANWATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondent was served with notice before admission, but did not appear. Therefore, fresh notice stating that the petition would be disposed of at the stage of admission was issued, yet none appears for respondent, consequently the respondent is proceeded exparte because of service of notice twice.

(2.) By the petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee, in Regular Darkhast NO. 8/2000 on 14th January, 2002, dismissing the Regular Darkhast on the ground that the decree dated 14.7.1991 passed in R.C.S. No. 638/94 by the 2nd Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur, was without jurisdiction. This order is impugned in this petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Civil Judge committed error of law and error of jurisdiction in rejecting the Darkhast. The premises that (1) on creation of Kamptee Revenue Taluka, the Small Causes Court at Nagpur cease to have jurisdiction is an illegal presumption and (2) the Executing Court does not have jurisdiction to go behind the decree and therefore, in dismissing the Darkhast on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the Small Causes Court was exercising jurisdiction not vested in him by law. On both the grounds, therefore, interference under Article 227 is necessary.