news details |
|
|
| Advocates duty-bound to check jurisdiction before filing pleas: Court | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Oct 10: Emphasising the responsibility of legal practitioners to examine the jurisdictional competence of courts before initiating proceedings, the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu, has observed that filing procedurally incompetent petitions without verifying their statutory basis results in avoidable wastage of precious judicial time and places an unwarranted strain on judicial resources.
First Additional District Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh made these observations while dismissing a revision petition filed by Prem Sagar Khajuria, a resident of Kandoli Nagrota, Jammu, against Jaswant Singh, holding that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) vests exclusively in the High Court.
The petitioner had challenged an order dated March 6, 2025, passed by the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, whereby the trial court had allowed and taken on record the written statement filed by the defendant in the civil suit titled Prem Sagar Khajuria versus Jaswant Singh.
After examining the matter, the Court observed that Section 115 CPC expressly confers revisional jurisdiction upon the High Court alone and does not empower the District Court to entertain a revision petition under the said provision.
The Court held that the revision petition was wholly misconceived, as it lacked the inherent statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate the challenge against the trial court's order.
Taking note of the procedural defect, Judge Amarjeet Singh Langeh observed that approaching a court without first verifying its statutory jurisdiction not only renders the proceedings incompetent but also leads to unnecessary consumption of judicial time.
The Court remarked that pursuing a procedurally incompetent remedy without verifying its statutory foundation causes avoidable wastage of precious judicial time and results in an unwarranted strain on judicial resources.
"It is also a basic duty of an Advocate to carefully scrutinize jurisdictional aspect of a matter like one on hand," the Court observed.
The observations underscore the responsibility of advocates to examine the legal maintainability and jurisdictional requirements of a case before invoking the authority of a judicial forum.
The Court made it clear that Section 115 CPC does not confer revisional powers upon the District Court, and consequently, the petition could not be entertained.
Holding that the revision petition was not maintainable for want of statutory jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the matter without examining the merits of the order passed by the trial court. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
