Hiralal v. Kalinath

This case draws a clear line between (a) competence of a court and (b) place/territory. Competence goes to the root and cannot be cured by consent. But territorial objections can be waived (Section 21 CPC). Here, after getting leave under Clause 12 and then consenting to arbitration through the Bombay High Court, the defendant could not later resist execution by saying the court lacked territorial jurisdiction.

• Can territorial/venue objections be pressed at the execution stage after participating in proceedings?
• How does Section 21 CPC treat objections to local jurisdiction versus competence?

• Competence vs Territory: Inherent lack of competence = nullity; cannot be cured by consent.
• Local/Territorial jurisdiction: A matter of venue; waivable under Section 21 CPC if not taken at the earliest and with prejudice shown.
• Estoppel after submission: Participating and consenting to arbitration through the court bars later territorial challenges.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. There was no inherent lack of competence in the Bombay High Court to try such a suit. The territorial objection was waived when the parties proceeded with arbitration through that court. Hence, the award-decree stood; execution could continue.

• Competence (subject-matter/power) ≠ Territory (venue). Only the former is non-waivable.
• Section 21 CPC gives statutory shape to waiver of local jurisdiction objections.
• Consent to arbitration through court → estoppel against later venue challenges.

It teaches litigants to raise territorial objections early—or lose them. It also reassures decree-holders that execution cannot be stalled by late venue attacks after clear submission to the court.

• Territorial jurisdiction is waivable; competence is not.
• Section 21 CPC requires timely objection + prejudice.
• Submitting to arbitration through a court → estoppel on venue.

Mnemonic: POWER ≠ PLACE

1. Power? If court lacks competence → fatal.
2. Place? Raise early or it’s waived (S.21 CPC).
3. Proceed? Consent/arbitration through court → estoppel.

Issue: Can the judgment-debtor defeat execution by raising territorial jurisdiction after consenting to arbitration through court?

Rule: Territorial objections are waivable (S.21 CPC); competence objections are not.

Application: Defendant submitted to Bombay High Court process and arbitration → waiver/estoppel.

Conclusion: Execution valid; appeal dismissed.

Competence (Inherent Jurisdiction)

Court’s legal power to hear the subject; cannot be conferred by consent.

Territorial Jurisdiction

Place/venue rules; can be waived if not timely raised.

Clause 12, Letters Patent

Provision permitting leave to sue on the High Court’s original side when part cause arises within limits.