Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court

"It is settled position of law that mere wrong provision of law would not be a ground to set aside the order if otherwise the Court possessed the power and jurisdiction to pass such order." Gujarat High Court, in a ruling dated September 22, 2026, held that a judicial order remains valid even if it cites an incorrect statutory provision, provided the court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to pass such an order under a different applicable law.

 Justice Maulik J. Shelat affirmed this principle while upholding a trial court order that directed the civil detention of judgment debtors for their persistent failure to disclose assets as required by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Non-Compliance of Disclosure Orders

The matter originated from a money decree passed by a Civil Court in Pune, which was transferred for execution to Palanpur. Despite being afforded multiple opportunities, the judgment debtors failed to satisfy the decree or comply with a court directive to file an affidavit disclosing their assets under Order 21 Rule 41(2) of the CPC. Consequently, the Executing Court exercised its powers under Order 21 Rule 41(3) to order the detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison.

Scope of Judicial Discretion

The primary question before the High Court was whether the Executing Court’s reference to Section 58 of the CPC, instead of Order 21 Rule 41(3), vitiated the order of detention. Additionally, the court addressed whether the failure to explicitly set out grounds of arrest under Order 21 Rule 11A of the CPC rendered the order procedurally defective.

Court Explains Doctrine of Wrong Provision

The High Court rejected the petitioners' contention that citing Section 58 instead of Order 21 Rule 41(3) invalidated the order. Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Karnataka vs. Muniyalla, the court reiterated that a mere recital of a wrong section does not invalidate an order if the authority was otherwise empowered to act.

"Mere recital of a wrong provision of law does not have the effect of invalidating an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority making it."

No Procedural Lapses Found

The court further dismissed the argument that the application for detention lacked the necessary grounds under Order 21 Rule 11A of the CPC. Justice Shelat observed that the provisions of Rule 11A cannot be read in isolation and that the judgment debtors were clearly aware that their detention was a direct consequence of their non-compliance with the asset disclosure mandate.

"The ground of arrest and detention of the petitioners into civil prison was not only made out, but explicitly stated in the impugned application."

Judicial Caution Against Frustration of Decrees

The court expressed strong disapproval of the conduct of the judgment debtors, noting that they had repeatedly stalled execution proceedings under the guise of settlement talks. The Bench emphasized that the Executing Court’s order, while severe, was a necessary consequence of the petitioners’ refusal to adhere to the mandate of the court.

"In my view, such type of defaulter should not be given any indulgence by the Court, whereby they succeed in their attempt to frustrate the decree at any cost."

Limits of Article 227 Jurisdiction

Refusing to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court clarified that its supervisory jurisdiction is not intended to correct every minor legal error, particularly when the lower court's reasoning is neither perverse nor contrary to settled law. The court concluded that the Executing Court had acted well within its authority, and the petition was dismissed accordingly.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026