STATE Vs. DEWAN JAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act came to be issued against Dewan Jaman Lal in the following circumstances. A decree for the recovery of Rs. 8,706.27 was passed against Dewan Jaman Lal and the judgment -debtor filed an appeal in this Court being Regular Second Appeal No. 937 of 1969. A civil miscellaneous petition was also filed in this appeal being Civil Miscellaneous No. 1754 of 1969, praying for the stay of the execution of the decree. On this application Pandit, J., passed the following order on 6th August, 1969:

(2.) IN reply it is stated that by issuing a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code the Respondent had committed No. contempt of Court and that the reference made by Shri Nagpal was the result of a conspiracy between the Senior Subordinate Judge, the Additional District Judge, Shri Chuni Lal, Advocate and Chetan Dass, decree -holder. It was also stated that as the decree against the judgment -debtor was a nullity it could not be executed and Shri Nagpal, therefore, had No. jurisdiction in the matter and the judgment -debtor was within his rights to issue a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to safeguard his interests. It was also stated that a prejudice against the Respondent was prevailing in the subordinate Courts where the cases were pending. It was denied that the notice amounted to a threat to Shri Nagpal. According to the Respondent, as Shri Nagpal was proceeding to execute the decree which was a nullity he had become personally liable for the legal consequences thereof. So, it was contended that the Respondent was legally entitled to issue a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also stated that this reference was not a bono fide one but had been made to pressurise the Respondent so that he may not expose some of the judicial officers and advocates of the Bar at Karnal. It was also added that the order of Shri Nagpal for the payment of the decretal amount in execution of a void decree was a gross abuse of the process of the Court and Shri Nagpal was himself liable for contempt of Court, and in order to safeguard himself against such an action, Shri Nagpal had moved for taking action against the Respondent which was not otherwise maintainable under the law.

(3.) ON behalf of the Respondent a large number of authorities were cited to show that the decree which was a nullity could not be executed. It is not necessary to deal with these authorities as there is No. dispute about the proposition of law urged before me and moreover the point dealt with in these cases does not arise in the present proceedings. The Respondent having raised objection that the decree passed against him was a nullity it was the duty of the executing Court to decide the execution application in the light of the objections taken by the Respondent in those proceedings. The executing Court could only come to a decision whether the decree passed against the Respondent was a nullity or not after dealing with the objection petition filed by the Respondent in accordance with law. The fact that the Respondent filed objections in the execution proceedings would itself indicate that the Respondent accepted that Shri Nagpal had the jurisdiction to decide the execution application as well as the objection petition filed by him. The argument urged by the attorney of the Respondent that, because in the objection petition a plea had been taken that the decree was a nullity the executing Court lost the jurisdiction to decide the execution application and the objection petition, is wholly without merit and cannot be accepted. It is within the jurisdiction of the executing Court to decide all the objections raised by the judgment -debtor including the objection that the decree which was sought to be executed was a nullity and could not be executed. I am, therefore, dearly of the view that Shri Nagpal had the jurisdiction to deal with the execution application as well as the objection petition filed by the Respondent and in proceeding to decide these matters he was not acting illegally or without jurisdiction.