SAMEER SINGH AND ANOTHER versus ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS

SAMEER SINGH AND ANOTHER versus ABDUL RAB AND OTHERS

An order of the executing court refusing to adjudicate the claims of a third party for want of jurisdiction is not a decree under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC. The appeal is thus maintainable and the writ petition dismissed by the High Court was wrongly rejected; jurisdiction under Article 227 was properly invoked.

Parties
Appellant: Sameer Singh; Respondent: Abdul Rab; Respondent: Universal Construction Company; Respondent: Engineers Syndicate (India) Private Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order in W.p.c. No. 348 of 2011, High Court of Jharkhand
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Execution Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Executing Court, Order XXI Rules 97 103 CPC, Article 227 Constitution
Civil Procedure Execution Proceedings Jurisdiction of Executing Court Order XXI Rules 97 103 CPC Article 227 Constitution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sameer Singh

Appellant

Abdul Rab

Respondent

Universal Construction Company

Respondent

Engineers Syndicate (India) Private Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order in W.p.c. No. 348 of 2011, High Court of Jharkhand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order of the executing court declining jurisdiction is a decree under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC
  2. 2 Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution was rightly invoked

Ratio Decidendi

An order of the executing court refusing to adjudicate the claims of a third party for want of jurisdiction is not a decree under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC. The appeal is thus maintainable and the writ petition dismissed by the High Court was wrongly rejected; jurisdiction under Article 227 was properly invoked.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • High Court to decide the matter as necessary under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
  • High Court requested to dispose of the matter within three months.