Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question describes the legal principle that an objection to the territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of a court must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. If a party participates in the proceedings without raising such an objection, they are deemed to have waived it and cannot challenge the court's decree later on this ground, unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. This principle prevents parties from taking a chance on a favourable verdict and then challenging jurisdiction if the verdict goes against them.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
This principle is explicitly codified in Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section 21 is titled "Objections to jurisdiction".
- Section 21(1) deals with objections to the place of suing (territorial jurisdiction). It states that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
- Section 21(2) applies the same principle to objections regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
- Section 21(3) applies it to the jurisdiction of an Executing Court.
This section embodies the principle of waiver. Objections to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction are considered procedural and can be waived. This is different from an objection to subject-matter jurisdiction, which is a fundamental defect and cannot be waived; a decree passed by a court without subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity.
The other sections are incorrect: S.15 deals with where suits are to be instituted, S.16 deals with suits relating to immovable property, and S.51 deals with powers of the court to enforce execution.