CPC Kiran Singh & Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and others AIR 1954, SC 340

 

Kiran Singh & Others Vs. Chaman Paswan & Others (AIR 1954 SC 340)

Facts of the Case:

1. The case arose from a land dispute in which the trial court, due to an error in jurisdiction, entertained a suit beyond its pecuniary limits.
2. The defendants challenged the decree on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction.
3. The High Court found that the trial court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction but did not set aside the decree, stating that the issue was not raised at the earliest stage.
4. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue Before the Court:

• Whether a decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction (pecuniary, territorial, or subject matter) is void or merely voidable.
• Whether a party can challenge jurisdiction at a later stage of proceedings.

Judgment and Law Laid Down:

The Supreme Court, in this landmark case, held that:

1. Jurisdictional Defect Cannot Be Cured – If a court lacks jurisdiction over a case, any decree passed is null and void, and its validity can be challenged at any stage, even in execution proceedings.
2. Jurisdiction is Fundamental – The court emphasized that jurisdiction is the foundation of a valid legal proceeding. If a court lacks jurisdiction, its judgment is inherently defective.
3. Waiver of Objection Not Applicable – Unlike procedural irregularities, a defect of jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties. If the court lacks competence, no amount of consent or acquiescence by the parties can confer jurisdiction upon it.
4. Distinction Between Void and Voidable Orders – A decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, whereas a mere procedural defect makes a decree voidable, not void.

Significance of the Judgment:

• This case set a crucial precedent in jurisdictional jurisprudence under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• It reinforced the principle that jurisdiction is not a technicality but a substantive requirement for a valid decree.
• The ruling is frequently cited in cases dealing with jurisdictional errors and their impact on judicial decisions.