Objection Regarding Court's Jurisdiction Must Be Raised At Earliest Possible Opportunity, Not After Adverse Order Is Passed: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that any objection with regard to jurisdiction of a court in adjudicating an appeal has to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a party and it cannot be raised after the passing of the order which has gone against it.

A single judge, Justice H P Sandesh dismissed a review petition filed by M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd, which had moved after the single judge had set aside an of the ESI court which had partly allowed the plea filed by the company and modified the order passed directing petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.26,34,569, towards damages for the delay in payment of contribution for the period from January 2009 to June 2013.

The petitioner contended that the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court suffers from want of jurisdiction since the value of the appeal is Rs.26,34,569. Referring to Section 5(i) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, it was claimed that all first appeals against a decree or order passed in a suit or other proceedings, the value of subject matter of which exceeds Rs.15,00,000 shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than Two Judges of the High Court and other first appeals shall be heard by a Single Judge of the High Court.

Further, it was argued that Section 21 of the CPC cannot be invoked and the High Court Act, overrides the CPC and hence, the contention of the respondent cannot be accepted.

The respondent contended that if there were any objections, the same ought to have been raised at the initial stage and Section 21 of CPC is applicable in all proceedings and the very contention of the petitioner's counsel that the High Court Act, 1961 overrides the CPC cannot be accepted. Moreover, unless the review petitioner makes out a case for failure of justice, cannot seek for review of the order.

Findings:

The bench noted that as per the proviso of Section 21 CPC, it is very clear that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that deciding the matter by the Single Judge as against the roster it leads to anarchy and chaos. The bench said, “This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that when the matter was listed before the Single Bench that means this Bench, while hearing the matter, he did not raise said objection and he kept quiet and argued the matter on merits when the order has been passed and it goes against him, the present petition is filed only on the ground that this Court is not having any jurisdiction.”

The bench referred to the Apex Court judgment dated 01.03.2025 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15347-15348/2020, wherein it was observed that objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity.

The court held “In the case on hand also when the review petitioner was unsuccessful in the appeal, come up for review of the order of the appeal only on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, the Court has to take note of the conduct of the review petitioner in filing this review petition.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs.25,000, payable within four weeks.

Appearance: Advocate Joseph Kanikaraj for Petitioner.

Advocate C Shashikantha for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 28

Case Title: M/s Renram Fashions India Pvt Ltd AND The ESI Corporation.

Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO.598 OF 2024 IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3185 OF 2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order