Asma Lateef vs. Shabbir Ahmad
Citation: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 517 : 2024 INSC 36; Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Aravind Kumar
Background
The dispute arose from a suit filed by Asma Lateef and another, claiming an oral gift of property from their great-grandmother and seeking a permanent injunction against Shabbir Ahmad and others to restrain interference with their possession. The trial court decreed the suit against one defendant, Samiullah, under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), due to his failure to file a written statement within the prescribed time. The decree was challenged on grounds of jurisdiction and maintainability, particularly because the property was agricultural (bhoomidhari) land, allegedly placing the dispute outside the civil court’s purview under Section 331 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Order VIII Rule 10 CPC — Not Automatic Decree:
The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, which allows a court to pronounce judgment when a written statement is not filed, is permissive and not mandatory. The court must still examine whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and whether the suit is maintainable in law. A decree cannot be passed solely due to procedural default; the plaintiff must prove entitlement through evidence.
Jurisdictional Inquiry is Essential:
The Court emphasized that civil courts must first determine their jurisdiction before granting relief, especially interim or final orders. Since the property in question was claimed as bhoomidhari land, the bar under Section 331 of the UPZA & LR Act applied, making the civil court’s decree void ab initio and inexecutable if it lacked jurisdiction.
Burden of Proof Remains on Plaintiff:
The Court reiterated that even if the defendant fails to file a written statement, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove their case on merits. Procedural lapses do not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree.
Decree Void for Lack of Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision that the trial court’s decree, passed without addressing the jurisdictional bar, was a nullity and incapable of execution.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a decree passed in the absence of jurisdiction is void and cannot be executed. The trial court’s failure to conduct a jurisdictional inquiry before passing judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC rendered its decree against Samiullah inexecutable.
Significance
This judgment reinforces that procedural defaults by defendants do not relieve plaintiffs of their burden to prove their case and that jurisdictional competence is a foundational prerequisite. It serves as a caution to trial courts to address jurisdiction to address jurisdiction
RELATED Blog
0 comments