B. MOHANA v. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
No. Section 21(2) of CPC allows no objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice, and prejudice under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act has also to be satisfied. Having joined the other defendants in an application to set aside the ex-parte decree without taking that objection, and that application having been dismissed for default and not pursued, the earliest possible opportunity was missed and the objection could not thereafter be raised before the Executing Court under Section 47 of CPC.
Letters Patent — Clause 12 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.21(2) — s.47 — Suits Valuation Act, 1887 — s.11 — Leave for suits for land — Transfer to the City Civil Court — Objection to pecuniary jurisdiction — Nullity and erroneous decree —
Letters Patent — Clause 12 — Suits for land — Leave unnecessary where property situate within jurisdiction —
Held: Under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent leave is required only where the cause of action arose in part within the local limits. For suits for land it is sufficient that the property is situate within the ordinary original jurisdiction. (¶10, 11)
Letters Patent — Clause 12 — Grant of leave — Transfer to City Civil Court —
Held further: Grant of leave in respect of some of the defendants does not necessitate the suit being retained on the file of the High Court. Such a suit may be transferred to the City Civil Court on enhancement of that Court's pecuniary jurisdiction. (¶12, 13)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.21(2) — Pecuniary jurisdiction — Objection at the earliest possible opportunity —
Held further: An objection as to the pecuniary limits of a Court's jurisdiction is not allowed unless taken at the earliest possible opportunity and there has been a consequent failure of justice. Prejudice under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act must be satisfied. (¶19, 23, 24)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.47 — Erroneous decree not a nullity —
Held further: Only an objection to jurisdiction over the subject matter renders a decree a nullity, not one to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. An erroneous decree, which the Executing Court cannot travel behind, is not inexecutable. Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (¶29, 50, 51, 53)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 19Any objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest instance. As rightly contended by Mr.K.S.V.Prasad, since the suit was filed before the Original Side of this Court, there was no occasion for invoking Section 21 of CPC at that point of time. However, at least when the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court and an ex-parte decree came to be passed and thereafter, the petitioner along with the other defendants attempted to set aside the ex-parte decree, they ought to have taken up the objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 08:33:18 pm )
Paragraph 23As already discussed in paragraph No.19, I am in entire agreement with the argument of Mr.K.S.V.Prasad, that the objection could not have been taken at the time of institution of the suit, since the suit was originally filed before the Original Side of this Court and written statements were also filed, when the suit was pending on the Original Side of this Court. However, once the petitioner was aware of the fact that the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court and according to the petitioner, the City Civil Court did not have the competence or jurisdiction to try the suit, at least then, the petitioner should have objected in terms of Section 21(2) of CPC at the “earliest possible opportunity” which was in the present case, when the petitioner joined hands with some of the other defendants, who had, in fact, even filed a counter claim and sought to set aside the ex-parte decree and also for restoration of the counter claim in I.A.No.116 of 2012. The said application was not even pursued by the petitioner and the other defendants and it was dismissed for default on 23.01.2013 and in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has missed the “earliest possible opportunity” in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Paragraph 24This apart, there is yet another barrier that the petitioner will have to overcome, namely “prejudice” and “failure of justice”. These aspects have to be tested in the light of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act as well, since the objection now taken, that too, before the Executing Court for the first time, is pertaining to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court itself. It is in this regard that the judgment of the Four Judge Bench of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 08:33:18 pm ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh’s case, referred herein supra, would come into play.
Paragraph 51I have already discussed elaborately as to how the decree, at best, can be an erroneous decree. It is certainly not a decree which is passed without jurisdiction for it to be termed as a nullity. In such circumstances, applying the ratio laid down in all the above cases, I do not find any error committed by the Executing Court. Further, the petitioner or for that matter even the other defendants having missed the bus in not taking their objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction at the earliest instance, at least, when the application was filed in I.A.No.116 of 2012 for setting aside the ex-parte decree and for restoration of the counter claim. It was not open to them to thereafter raise the very same issue, that too, before the Executing Court. As held by the Hon’ble https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/08/2026 08:33:18 pm ) Supreme Court, such objections cannot be entertained at the stage of execution, that too, under Section 47 of CPC.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of B. MOHANA v. LAKSHMINARAYANAN — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India