P&H High Court Rejects Challenge to Decree; Says Commercial Court Objection in Execution Is “Afterthought”
Case Name: Ripin Mahajan and Another vs. Joginder Singh
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025
Citation: CR No. 8005 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petitioners’ challenge to the execution order and held that objections regarding commercial court jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time in execution. The Court found that the petitioners fully participated in the trial, did not contest jurisdiction at any stage, and allowed the suit to conclude in a decree. It held that only a case of total lack of inherent jurisdiction can render a decree a nullity, and no such defect existed here. The trial Judge had more than ten years of service and was competent under the High Court’s notification empowering Civil Judges (Junior Division) with over five years’ service to try commercial disputes within pecuniary limits.
Summary: The decree holder filed a civil suit seeking recovery arising out of business dealings involving iron-sheet and cutting-scrap supplies. The defendants issued cheques that were dishonoured, which led to a Section 138 NI Act complaint. After part payment, the decree holder filed a recovery suit. The trial Court decreed the suit on 07.02.2024. During execution, the judgment debtors objected, alleging that the suit was a commercial dispute exceeding ₹3,00,000 and should have been filed before a Commercial Court under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act. The Executing Court rejected this argument, relying on the High Court’s notification that authorised Civil Judges (Junior Division) with sufficient experience to exercise commercial court jurisdiction. The High Court agreed and noted that the petitioners never raised jurisdictional issues at trial. It emphasised the principle in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan that only inherent lack of jurisdiction—not an irregular exercise—can invalidate a decree. It held that the objection was an attempt to delay execution rather than a genuine legal challenge.
Decision: The High Court upheld the Executing Court’s order and dismissed the revision petition. It held that the decree was valid and executable, and that the execution proceedings must continue in accordance with law. No order as to costs.