Execution Petition returned at the stage of registration on the ground that the decree holder sought damages in addition to arrears of rent. Held that the executing court has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of an execution petition by questioning entitlement under the decree. Executing court cannot go behind the decree, except where the decree is without inherent jurisdiction. Objections relating to executability can be examined only after registration of the Execution Petition. Return of E.P. held unsustainable. Civil Revision Petition allowed.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

Execution Petition returned at the stage of registration on the ground that the decree holder sought damages in addition to arrears of rent. Held that the executing court has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of an execution petition by questioning entitlement under the decree. Executing court cannot go behind the decree, except where the decree is without inherent jurisdiction. Objections relating to executability can be examined only after registration of the Execution Petition. Return of E.P. held unsustainable. Civil Revision Petition allowed.

---

HEAD NOTE

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Execution of decree

Executing court cannot go behind the decree or question its legality or correctness. Only exception is where the decree is without inherent jurisdiction.
(Paras 8–11)

---

Execution Petition — Registration stage — Jurisdiction of executing court

At the stage of registration of an Execution Petition, the executing court has no jurisdiction to raise objections regarding entitlement of the decree holder under the decree. Such objections cannot be a ground for return of the E.P.
(Paras 7, 11)

---

Execution of decree — Arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation

Where the decree itself awards arrears of rent for one period and damages for use and occupation for a subsequent period, the executing court cannot question such entitlement at the stage of registration of the execution petition.
(Paras 5–7)

---

Article 227 of the Constitution of India — Supervisory jurisdiction

High Court can interfere under Article 227 where the executing court commits a jurisdictional error by refusing to register an execution petition contrary to settled law.
(Paras 11, 13)

---

Execution proceedings — Stage of consideration of objections

Questions relating to executability of the decree or jurisdiction of the court passing the decree can be considered only after registration of the execution petition, and not at the threshold.

In motor accident claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence can be inferred on the basis of FIR, inquest report and other public documents applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, even in the absence of eye-witnesses or charge-sheet, and just compensation must be determined by applying the multiplier method with future prospects and consortium in accordance with settled Supreme Court precedents.

 AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168, 169, 173 — Motor accident claim — Standard of proof

In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are required to establish negligence only on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials do not apply to proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
(Paras 15–20)

---

Motor accident — Negligence — Proof — FIR, inquest report and MVI report

Non-examination of an eye-witness or non-filing of charge-sheet is not fatal to a motor accident claim. Certified copies of public documents such as FIR, inquest report and Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report are admissible and can form the basis to infer negligence, particularly when the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remain ex parte.
(Paras 13–17, 21–22)

---

Motor accident — Tribunal’s approach — Summary enquiry

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is required to adopt a holistic and pragmatic approach consistent with the summary nature of enquiry contemplated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules. Technical flaws or absence of best evidence cannot defeat a legitimate claim.
(Paras 18–20)

---

Motor accident — Insurer’s defence — Failure to examine driver/owner

Where the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remain ex parte and the insurer does not take steps to examine them, an adverse inference can be drawn, particularly when the insurer disputes only the quantum of compensation and not the occurrence of the accident.
(Paras 21–22, 32)

---

Compensation — Determination — Multiplier method

Determination of compensation must follow the multiplier method as laid down in Sarla Verma, taking into account the age of the deceased, income, number of dependants, appropriate multiplier, deduction towards personal expenses and addition under conventional heads.
(Paras 23–24, 29–30)

---

Compensation — Future prospects

Future prospects are to be added in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, even in cases of self-employed or fixed salary persons, depending upon the age of the deceased.
(Paras 24, 29)

---

Compensation — Consortium

Compensation towards loss of consortium is payable not only to the spouse but also to children and parents under the heads of spousal, parental and filial consortium, as recognised in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram.
(Paras 25, 30)

---

Compensation — Just compensation — Power of Tribunal

The Tribunal and the Appellate Court are empowered to award just compensation, even exceeding the amount claimed, and should not be constrained by technicalities when determining compensation for loss of life.
(Paras 26, 30)

---

Liability — Owner and insurer

Where negligence of the offending vehicle is established and the vehicle is admittedly insured, the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
(Paras 32–33)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

In motor accident claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence can be inferred on the basis of FIR, inquest report and other public documents applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, even in the absence of eye-witnesses or charge-sheet, and just compensation must be determined by applying the multiplier method with future prospects and consortium in accordance with settled Supreme Court precedents.

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Compliance with prior judicial directions When a Court issues a specific direction to a particular statutory authority to consider and decide a representation, only that authority is competent to pass the order. Any order passed by a different authority, even within the same department, is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. (Paras 24–26) Pollution Control — Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Consent to Operate — Decision on representation An order rejecting a representation concerning Consent to Operate, passed by an authority not designated by a prior judicial order, is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction, irrespective of the merits of the environmental compliance. (Paras 26–27)

AP HIGH COURT 

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Maintainability of writ petition — Alternative statutory remedy

Availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. In such cases, the High Court is justified in entertaining the writ petition notwithstanding the existence of an appellate remedy.
(Paras 27–29)

---

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Compliance with prior judicial directions

When a Court issues a specific direction to a particular statutory authority to consider and decide a representation, only that authority is competent to pass the order. Any order passed by a different authority, even within the same department, is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
(Paras 24–26)

---

Pollution Control — Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Consent to Operate — Decision on representation

An order rejecting a representation concerning Consent to Operate, passed by an authority not designated by a prior judicial order, is vitiated for lack of jurisdiction, irrespective of the merits of the environmental compliance.
(Paras 26–27)

---

Judicial Review — Scope — Decision-making authority

Where the decision-making process itself is vitiated on account of lack of jurisdiction, the Court need not enter into the merits of the controversy and may confine itself to correcting the jurisdictional error.
(Para 27)

---

Administrative Law — Speaking order — Duty of statutory authority

When reconsideration is directed, the competent authority must pass a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity to all affected parties.
(Para 30)

---

Principles governing writ jurisdiction — Exceptions to rule of alternate remedy

The recognised exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy include cases where:
(i) fundamental rights are violated;
(ii) principles of natural justice are breached;
(iii) the order is wholly without jurisdiction; or
(iv) vires of a statute is under challenge.
(Paras 28–29)
Relied on: Radha Krishan Industries; Whirlpool Corporation

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The petitioner challenged the order dated 22-01-2025 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Eluru, rejecting his representation seeking cancellation of Consent to Operate (CTO) granted to the 14th respondent industrial unit.

Earlier, in W.P. No. 14036 of 2024, the High Court had specifically directed the APPCB Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 11-10-2023.

Contrary to that judicial direction, the representation was decided by the Regional Office, Eluru, through its Environmental Engineer. The Division Bench held that:

• once the Court had identified the competent authority, no other authority could assume that role;

• the order passed by the Regional Office was therefore ex facie without jurisdiction;

• in such a situation, the existence of an appellate remedy under the Water Act did not bar the writ petition.

The Court expressly declined to examine the substantive disputes relating to the lease deed, alleged forgery, registration requirement, or compliance with consent conditions, holding that those issues must be examined by the proper authority as per law.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

An administrative order passed by an authority other than the one specifically directed by a Court to decide a matter is without jurisdiction, and such jurisdictional defect justifies interference under Article 226 of the Constitution notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

A neighbouring resident has locus standi to challenge constructions made in violation of sanctioned building plans in a residential area; however, once zoning regulations permit the construction and no legal right is infringed, procedural irregularities alone do not vitiate building permission or justify interference, and municipal action affecting property rights must comply with statutory notice requirements and principles of natural justice.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Common order in connected writ petitions

Where multiple writ petitions arise out of inter-related disputes concerning the same property, same parties and overlapping issues, the High Court is justified in hearing them together and disposing them by a common order.
(Para 1)

---

Municipal Law — Illegal constructions — Locus standi of neighbouring residents

Residents of the locality have locus standi to question illegal constructions which disrupt the character of a residential area and violate sanctioned building plans, as such constructions invade their personal and legal interests.
(Paras 18–19)
Relied on: Sri K. Ramdas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi

---

Municipal Law — Building permission — Challenge by third party

A building permit can be questioned by a third party only on limited grounds, namely:
(i) claim of title or legal right over the property, or
(ii) violation of zoning regulations.
In the absence of infringement of any legal right, a neighbour lacks locus standi to challenge the grant of building permission.
(Paras 21–22)

---

Town Planning — Residential permission — Construction contrary to sanctioned plan

Where a building is sanctioned for residential use, but the material on record including photographs, inspection reports and construction features indicate that a commercial structure was constructed from inception, the action amounts to construction contrary to the sanctioned plan.
(Paras 29–30)

---

Municipal Law — Subsequent zoning change — Effect

Subsequent change of land use from residential zone to commercial zone under a revised master plan permits issuance of fresh building permission for commercial use, provided the construction conforms to the applicable rules and zoning regulations.
(Paras 28, 32)

---

Municipal Law — Building permit — Procedural irregularity

A distinction must be drawn between procedural irregularity and substantive illegality. Mere procedural deviations in granting permission do not vitiate the sanction in the absence of infringement of a legal right.
(Para 22)

---

Municipal Law — Occupancy Certificate

When a building conforms to zoning regulations and building rules prevailing at the relevant time, and no deviations are pointed out, there is no justification to withhold issuance of Occupancy Certificate.
(Paras 32–33)

---

Municipal Corporations Act — Demolition / closure orders — Principles of natural justice

Orders directing closure of premises or removal of alleged unauthorised constructions, passed without issuance of statutory show-cause notice, violate procedural safeguards and are liable to be set aside, with liberty to the authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
(Para 35)

---

Equitable jurisdiction — Costs

Where parties make misleading pleadings and suppress material facts, yet the construction ultimately conforms to zoning regulations, the Court may take a balanced approach by imposing exemplary costs instead of directing demolition.
(Paras 30–31)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The batch of writ petitions arose from long-standing neighbourhood disputes relating to construction activities in Bhimavaram Municipality, involving allegations of:

• construction of a commercial building under the guise of a residential plan,

• grant of fresh commercial permission after change of zoning,

• refusal to issue Occupancy Certificate, and

• action taken by the Municipality against the complainant himself for unauthorised commercial activity.

The Court first addressed locus standi, holding that neighbours have a right to challenge constructions that violate sanctioned plans in a residential area (W.P. No.15425 of 2023), but do not have locus to challenge a building permit granted in accordance with zoning regulations merely on procedural grounds (W.P. No.17367 of 2024).

On facts, relying on photographs, inspection reports and pleadings, the Court concluded that the structure was commercial in nature from inception, contrary to the original residential permission. However, the Court also noted:

• subsequent change of zoning to commercial under the master plan dated 17-01-2024,

• grant of commercial building permission by EUDA on 28-06-2024, and

• absence of any violation of current zoning regulations.

Balancing equities, the Court refrained from ordering demolition, imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the builders for misleading pleadings, and permitted consideration of Occupancy Certificate.

With respect to municipal action against the complainant’s own property (bar and restaurant), the Court found procedural violations, set aside the closure order, and directed fresh proceedings after issuance of statutory notice.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A neighbouring resident has locus standi to challenge constructions made in violation of sanctioned building plans in a residential area; however, once zoning regulations permit the construction and no legal right is infringed, procedural irregularities alone do not vitiate building permission or justify interference, and municipal action affecting property rights must comply with statutory notice requirements and principles of natural justice.

O.7 R.11, O.1 R.10 — Registration of plaint — Scope of scrutiny at pre-registration stage. At the stage of registration of a plaint, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the claim or the maintainability of the suit on disputed questions of law and fact. Issues relating to liability of parties and applicability of statutory bars must be decided only after registration, framing of issues and trial. (Paras 8, 10, 11)

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.7 R.11, O.1 R.10 — Registration of plaint — Scope of scrutiny at pre-registration stage.
At the stage of registration of a plaint, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the claim or the maintainability of the suit on disputed questions of law and fact. Issues relating to liability of parties and applicability of statutory bars must be decided only after registration, framing of issues and trial.
(Paras 8, 10, 11)

Constitution of India — Art. 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Refusal to register plaint.
Where the trial Court refuses to register a plaint by entering into the merits of the claim and adjudicating legal issues prematurely, such refusal amounts to jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(Paras 11, 13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 6(4) (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) — Pious obligation — Scope.
Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not bar the institution of a suit. It only mandates that a Court shall not recognize the right of a creditor to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson (including daughters) solely on the ground of pious obligation, subject to determination during trial.
(Paras 3, 8)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 6(4) — Applicability — Stage of consideration.
The question whether liability is sought to be fastened on coparceners on the basis of pious obligation, and whether Section 6(4) applies, are matters for adjudication during trial after registration of the suit, and not at the stage of scrutiny of the plaint.
(Paras 5, 8)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — O.1 R.10 — Power of Court to strike out parties.
Even where doubts exist regarding the liability of certain defendants, the trial Court retains power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to direct deletion of parties at an appropriate stage; such doubts do not justify refusal to register the suit.
(Para 10)

Money suit — Promissory note — Maintainability.
A suit based on a promissory note executed by the first defendant is certainly maintainable against the executant, irrespective of the ultimate determination of liability of other defendants.
(Para 9)

Trial Court — Jurisdiction — Excess exercise at threshold.
By questioning the liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and applying Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act at the stage of registration, the trial Court travelled beyond its jurisdiction.
(Para 11)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The petitioner instituted a money recovery suit based on a promissory note allegedly executed by defendant No.1, asserting that he borrowed the amount as kartha of a joint family, thereby making his minor daughters (defendant Nos.2 and 3) also liable.

The trial Court, at the pre-registration stage, returned the plaint by invoking Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, holding that post-2005 amendment, no creditor can proceed against children on the basis of pious obligation.

The High Court held that:

• Section 6(4) does not create a bar to institution of a suit.

• At best, upon satisfaction of statutory conditions, the Court may refuse to recognize liability at the stage of adjudication.

• Whether liability of defendant Nos.2 and 3 arises, whether pious obligation applies, and whether such obligation can arise during the lifetime of the father, are mixed questions of law and fact.

• Such questions can only be examined after registration of the plaint, framing of issues and trial.

• The trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by deciding these issues prematurely.

• The existence of power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC further shows that doubts regarding party liability cannot justify refusal to register a suit.

Accordingly, the refusal to register the plaint was held to be illegal and unsustainable.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not bar the filing or registration of a suit; the applicability of pious obligation and liability of coparceners are matters for trial, and a civil court has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of a plaint by adjudicating such issues at the threshold.