Leading case law -When High court should grant relief against interlocutory order passed by subordinate court?
The aspect of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction has
been dealt with by the Apex Court in its decision in case of
Subhash Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas
reported in (2007) 13 SCC 650. The Apex Court has held that the
objection to the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction is to be
treated on par with Section 21 of CPC. It has further been held
that taking note of the object of the amendment in the light of law,
as expounded by this Court, it would be incongruous to hold that
Section 21-A takes in only objection to the territorial jurisdiction
and not to the pecuniary jurisdiction. It has been held that a
decree passed by a Court lacking territorial or pecuniary
jurisdiction does not automatically become void. At the best, it is
voidable, in the sense that it could be challenged in appeal
therefrom, provided the conditions of Section 21 of CPC are
satisfied.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5775 OF 2012
AND
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.482 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION NO.722 OF 2013
Walchandnagar Industries Limited,
Versus
1. Indraprastha Developers,
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 25-9-2013
Citation;2014(2) ALLMR 550
