Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarup Singh v. Union of India dated 25/11/2010 held that a High Court can not override its own judgment which has become finality in absence of any appeal or review aginst such order. it further held that the executing court can rightly ignore such decision as being nullity. in this case the Hon'ble High Court enhanced the compensation amount under Land Acquisation (amendmenat) Act,1984 which was previously decided by the same High Court. the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed this matter in length and observed as follows:
It is true that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and grant interest not granted in the decree as in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma reported in AIR 1990 SC 2177. But, if a decree is found to be nullity, the same could be challenged and interfered with at any subsequent stage, say, at the execution stage or even in a collateral proceeding. This is in view of the fact that if a particular Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such Court would be without jurisdiction and the same is non-est and void ab initio. The aforesaid position is well-settled and not open for any dispute as the defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very root and authority of the Court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the parties. This Court in several decisions has specifically laid down that validity of any such decree or order could be challenged at any stage. In Union of India v. Sube Ram & Others reported in (1997) 9 SCC 69 this court held thus:"5. [...] here is the case of entertaining the application itself; in other words, the question of jurisdiction of the court. Since the appellate court has no power to amend the decree and grant the enhanced compensation by way of solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, it is a question of jurisdiction of the court. Since courts have no jurisdiction, it is the settled legal position that it is a nullity and it can be raised at any stage." In yet another case of Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Others v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anothers reported in (1983) 3 SCC 437 this Court has held that when a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction erroneously assumes jurisdiction by ignoring a statutory provision and its consequences in law on the status of parties or by a decision are wholly unwarranted with regard to the jurisdictional fact, its decision is a nullity and its validity can be raised in collateral proceeding. In Balvant N. Viswamitra & Others v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) Through Lrs. & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 706 this Court stated thus: "9. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the decree passed by the trial court can be said to be "null" and "void". In our opinion, the law on the point is well settled. The distinction between a decree which is void and a decree which is wrong, incorrect, and irregular or not in accordance with law cannot be overlooked or ignored. Where a court lacks herent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such court would be without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio. A defect of jurisdiction of the court goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very authority of the court to pass a decree or make an order. Such defect has always been treated as basic and fundamental and a decree or order passed by a court or an authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity. Validity of such decree or order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or collateral proceedings." In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) Through Lrs. v. Jasjit Singh & Others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 this Court stated thus: "18. It is settled law that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject-matter or on the grounds on which the decree made which goes to the root of its jurisdiction or lacks inherent jurisdiction is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party. ............." In the present cases the judgment and order passed by the High Court before the amendment Act of 68 of 1984 became final and binding as no appeal was brought to this Court thereafter. However, consequent to the Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants had filed civil miscellaneous applications for the grant of 30 per cent solatium and 9 per cent interest for first year and 15 per cent interest thereafter. This Court has also held in a catena of decisions that a decree once passed and which has become final and binding cannot be sought to be amended by filing petition under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. In the case of Union of India v. Swaran Singh & Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 501 this Court held thus:- "8. The question then is whether the High Court has power to entertain independent applications under Sections 151 and 152 and enhance solatium and interest as amended under Act 68 of 1984. This controversy is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and also in a catena of decisions following thereafter in Union of India v. Pratap Kaur; State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar; State of Punjab v. Babu Singh; Union of India v.Raghubir Singh and K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, this Court has held that the Reference Court or the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain any applications under Sections 151 and 152 to correct any decree which has become final or to independently pass an award enhancing the solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984.Consequently, the award by the High Court granting enhanced solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till date of deposit under Section 28 as amended under Act 68 of 1984 is clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. The order being a nullity, it can be challenged at any stage. Rightly the question was raised in execution. The executing court allowed the petition and dismissed the execution petition. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the executing court." In the case of Union of India v. Rangila Ram (dead) by Lrs. Reported in (1995) 5 SCC 585 held as follows: - "4. The point is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the scope of the power of the High Court under Sections 151 and 152, CPC and also under Section 13-A of the Act. This Court has held that once the civil court made an award as per law then in force which became final and that there is no error of law as on that date. Subsequent amendment does not give power to the court to amend the decree under Sections 151 and 152, CPC. This was held in State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar and Union of India v. Pratap Kaur. In Maharau Srawan Hatkar case this Court held that the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction and was devoid of the power to entertain an application to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The facts therein were that the award had become final and the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force on 24-9-1984. The respondents made an application under Sections 151 and 152, CPC to award enhanced solatium and additional benefits etc. and the civil court allowed and granted the same. In that context, considering the civil court's power under Sections 151 and 152, CPC, this Court laid the above law." In the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. & Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 this Court described the scope of Section 152, C.P.C. thus: "6. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders of errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment