MOHIT BHARGAVA versus BHARAT BHUSHAN BHARGAVA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 20-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. ,S 
MOHIT BHARGAVA 
A 
v. 
BHARAT BHUSHAN BHARGA VA AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 2007 
[PK BALASUBRAMANYAN AND S-8. SINHA, JJ .] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
~ 
s,39(4)-Jurisdiction of executing court-Held: Executing court cannot c 
proceed against property situated outside its jurisdiction-Jurisdiction-
Territorial jurisdiction. 
Judgment/Order: 
Freezing order/Mareva injunction-Restraint orders passed by 
D 
executing court-JD not challenging these orders-Decree holder seeking 
sale of property belonging to J~bjection by JD that executing court has 
~ " 
no jurisdiction to order sale, as property is situated outside its jurisdiction-
Rejected-JD challenging this as also restraint orders-High Court refusing 
to interfere with restraint orders-Correctness of-Held: Restraint orders 
were within the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree and were E 
in the nature of freezing order or a mareva injunction and an order akin to 
an Anton Piller order, orders which could be issued even if property is 
outside the jurisdiction of the court-As JD never bothered to question those 
orders when they were passed, High Court not in error in refusing to interfere 
with those orders. 
F 
The decree holder and the grand father of the judgment debtor among 
others, were partners in a firm. A notice of dissolution was issued by some of 
the partners to the grand father of the judgment debtor. Ultimately, the decree 
holder filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the 
partnership and for rendition of accounts. The court passed a preliminary G 
decree declaring that the partnership firm stood dissolved and directed that 
1-
accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities. 
Tf!e grand father executed a will bequeathing the properties to his grand 
son, the judgment debtor. On 1911.1985, the grand father of the judgment 
397 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A debtor died. The final decree proceedings continued and the Commissioner 
submitted his report after scrutinizing the accounts. The District Court, 
Gwalior, passed a final decree in the suit for dissolution whereby the judgment 
debtor was held liable to pay certain sums to the plaintiff and other partners. 
The decree holder, filed an execution petition in the District Court of Gwalior. 
B Meanwhile, the will executed by the grand father designating the judgment 
debtor as the legatee was probated for execution of the decree. 
The decree holder moved the executing court for an injunction 
restraining the person holding the building said to have been bequeathed to 
tht judgment debtor by his grand father, from handing over possession of the 
C same to the judgment debtor and from handing over the documents of title to 
him. He also sought a direction restraining the bank holding an account of 
the estate from permitting the judgment debtor to operate the accounts. The 
executing court passed an order on 19.3.2003 directing the occupant of the 
building as well as the bank not to transfer to the judgment-debtor the 
properties enumerated in the list submitted by the decree holder. The person 
D holding the building moved the executing court praying that he be relieved 
from the responsibility of managing the property. On 7.7.2003, the executing 
court, after taking notice of the documents produced by the occupant of the 
;, • 
building concerned, directed that the documents be kept in safe custody of 
the court. An application was moved by the decree holder that he had received 
E an offer for the purchase of the building in question, which was situate at 
Indore, and praying that the said property may be sold by way of auction and 
the amount received by apportioned among the decree holder and other 
partners. 
Though the judgment debtor had not challenged the orders dated 
F 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, He raised an objection in the executing court that 
tt.e executing court lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of the 
property situate in Indore lying outside its territorial jurisdiction. The 
application was made under s.39 read with Order XXI Rule 3 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure. The judgment debtor also filed an independent objection to 
the prayer of the decree holder for sale of the property at Indore. On 6.4.2004 
G the executing court rejected the objections from the judgment debtor holding 
that it had territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the execution. It also passed 
an order directing that the ho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.