il Writ Petition 747 of 1985
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
SR Rangarajan and KB Rohtagi for the Petitioner
Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli Advocates for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK CJ
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed by Baldev Raj Sharma against an order of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana rejecting his application for enrolment as an advocate
On 4 March 1972 the petitioner passed the Bachelor of Arts examination from the Punjabi University Patiala
In 1978 he joined the Bachelor of Laws Academic course in Kurukshetra University
The course is of two years  dura tion
The petitioner completed the course and on 1 January 1981 he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Laws Academ ic by the Kurukshetra University
During the year 198 1 the petitioner joined the LLB Professional course in the third year in Kanpur University as a regular student
The Kanpur University confers two distinct degrees LLB General which is a two year course and LLB Profes sional which is a three year course
A person who has been awarded the LLB General degree is eligible for admission to the LLB Professional third year
The petitioner says that there is no distinction in the Rules and Regulations of the Kanpur University on whether LLB General course should be pursued by regular attendance or as a non collegi ate student
It is urged that the LLB degree of the Kanpur University is recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment as an advocate
The petitioner attended classes as a regular student of the LLB 864 Professional Course third year of the Kanpur University as required by the Rules and Regulations framed by that Univer sity
He appeared in the final examination and was declared successful
On 22 July 1982 the degree of LLB Profes sional was issued by the Kanpur University to him
Thereaf ter on 4 August 1982 the petitioner applied to the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana with the necessary enrol ment fee for enrolment as an advocate under the 
On 26 April 1983 the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana denied enrolment to the petitioner as an advocate on the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Rule 11c of the Rules of the Bar Council of India framed under section 7h and i section 241ciii and iiia and section 491d
The detailed grounds of refusal supplied to the petitioner by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana state that the petitioner had obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree from the Kurukshetra University as a result of the examination held in April 1980 as a private candi date
It was an LLB Academic degree obtained in two years  study as a private candidate
The third year of law was pursued by him as a regular student from VSSD Col lege Kanpur of the Kanpur University from which institution he obtained the professional degree
It was further stated that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the provisions detailed earlier as he had passed his two years  law course as a private candidate from Kurukshe tra University and the third year law only by regular at tendance at the VSSD College Kanpur
It appears that the State Bar Council upon receiving the application of the petitioner for enrolment as an advocate obtained the opin ion of the Bar Council of India and in conformity with that opinion the State Bar Council has refused enrolment
Section 241c provides as follows 24
Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll1 Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he fulfils the following conditions namely c he has obtained a degree in law i   ii   865 iii after the 12th day of March 1967 save as provided in sub clause iiia after under going a three year course of study in law from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Coun cil of India or iiia after undergoing a course of study in law the duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academ ic year 1967 68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is recog nised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India
 Sub clause iii of clause c of section 241 entitles a person to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he has obtained a degree in law after 12th March 1967 after under going three years  of study in law in any University in India recognised for the purposes of the by the Bar Council of India
An exception to this is provided by sub cl
iii of clc under which a person is quali fied for admission as an advocate if he has obtained a degree in law after undergoing a course of study in law the duration of which is not less than two academic years com mencing from the academic year 1967 68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India recognised for the purposes of the Act by the Bar Council of India
The petitioner obtained a degree of Bachelor of Laws Profes sional from the Kanpur University in the examination of 1981
He had pursued the third year course only of study pertaining to that degree as a regular student of the VSS D College Kanpur in Kanpur University
The Bar Council of India has framed Rules under the 
Rule 11c of of the Bar Council of India Rules 1975 provides that except as provided in section 241ciiia of the a degree in law obtained from any University in the territory of India after 12th March 1967 shall not be recognised for the purposes of section 241ciii of the Act unless the conditions specified there are fulfilled including the condition that the course of study in law has been by regular attendance at the requisite number of lectures tutorials and moot courts in a college recognised by a University
These rules were replaced by a fresh set of rules in 1984 and the new Rule 11c is almost identical
The Rule clearly requires that the course of study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures tutorials and moot courts and practical training
The Rule envisages that for the entire period of the law course there must be a regular attendance of the student before he can satisfy the conditions necessary for enrolment as an advocate under the 
The Rules amplify what is intended in section 241ciii 866 of the Act
The three years  course of study envisaged by that subclause in the Act intends that the three years  course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regu lar attendance
We are unable to say that there is any inconsistency between the Act and the Rule
So also in a case falling under cl
iii of section 241c of the Act a course of study in law must be pursued for not less than two academic years in terms of that sub clause and Rule 11c will apply to such a case also
There is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candi date
The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules indicates the great emphasis laid on regular attendance at the law classes
The conditions are specifically spelt out when the Act is read along with the Rules
When so read it is plain that a candidate desiring enrolment as an advocate under the must fulfil the conditions mentioned in section 241ciii or section 241ciiia read with Rule 11c of the Bar Council of India Rules 1975
In the present case the petitioner failed to do so
His application for enrolment was rightly reject ed
The writ petition is dismissed but in the circum stances there is no order as to costs
PSS Petition dismissed


Summary:
The respondent had filed a suit before the Senior Sub Judge against the appellant for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the shop let out to him
The suit was decreed ex parte on October 20 1977
The application under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on January 10 1979 and was confirmed on appeal on August 7 1979 and later in revision by the High Court
When the respondent landlord took out execution proceed ings for ejectment of the appellant tenant he objected under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contending that the decree passed by the civil court was a nullity as the premises in question was governed by the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act 11 of 1973
According to him the Controller under the Act was the competent authority regarding claims for ejectment and by necessary implication the civil Court was divested of jurisdiction to take cogni sance and pass a decree for ejectment
That objection was overruled and further revision to the High Court also failed
Simultaneously the appellant had also filed a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution which was also dismissed
Hence this appeal by the appellant tenant by special leave
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD Normally a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction after adjudication on merits of the rights of the parties operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings and binds the parties 150 or the persons claiming right title or interest from the parties
Its validity should be assailed only in an appeal or revision as the case may be
In subsequent proceedings its validity cannot be questioned
162G A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction lacks inherent jurisdiction
It is a coram non judice
A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est
Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings
The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party
162H 163A See Kiran Singh  Ors
vs Chaman Paswan  Ors  Ferozi Lal Jain vs Man Mal  Anr AIR 1979 SC 794 Bahadur Singh vs Muni Subrat Dass  Smt
Kaushalya Devi  Ors
vs KL Bansal AIR 1970 SC 838 Chandrika Misir  Anr
vs Bhaiya Lal   Ledgard vs Bull 1886 Law Report 13 AC 134 Bartan vs Fincham 1921 2 KB Division 291 at 299 Peachery Property Corporation vs Robinson 983 Choudari Rama dead per LR Choudharv Ganapathi vs Qureshi Bee 1983 2 Andhra Law Times 133 approved A question relating to jurisdiction of a court or inter pretation of provisions of a statute cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of a court
Therefore the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to a case of decree of nullity
If the court inherently lacks jurisdiction consent cannot confer jurisdiction
Where certain statutory rights in a welfare legislation are creat ed the doctrine of waiver also does not apply to a case of decree where the court inherently lacks jurisdiction
163F G See Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal  Ors
vs Dossibai NB Jeejeebhey   Tarini Charan Bhattacher jee s case ILR It is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant from a building in the urban area leased out by the landlord
Thereby the civil court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree of ejectment
164A See Barrachlough vs Brown  Doe vs Bridges 151  at 859 Premier Automobiles vs KS Wadke  Therefore in the instant case though the decree was passed and the jurisdiction of the court was gone into in issue Nos 4 and 5 at the ex parte trial the decree there under is a nullity and does not bind the appellant
There fore it does not operate as res judicata
The courts below have committed grave error of law in holding that the decree in the suit operated as res judicata and the appellant cannot raise the same point once again at the execution
164B Hari Prashad Gupta vs Jitender Kumar Kaushik 1982 Vol
84 Punjab Law Reporter 150 Sadhu Singh vs District Board Gurdaspur  Anr 1962 Punjab Law Reporter Vol
64 1 Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhat Rabdul Rehman  Ors  Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath   Phool Chand Sharma  Ors
vs Chandra Shankar Pathak dr Ors 828 Mohanlal Goenka vs Benoy Krishna Mukherjee  Ors