w^s.s^y :® ^ i I IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. fe> /2006 Applicants :- -RiSS^^. 1. Sanjay Kumaraged 28 yearsson ofSundarlal Kashyap 2. Vijay Kumar aged 24 years son of Sundarlal Kashyap ^^ ^co^ ,<?T1^' ,j^ ^^ ^ o^ _ 3. STj^sh Kumar aged 20 years son of Sundarlal ^^'uv' c^^° ^- Resoondents :- . ^ ^M/ 4W Kashyap all of them caste Kachhi, resident of vitlage Ghuru, Tahsil Takhatpur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS l^ Madanlal Kurre aged 40 years son of Mohanlal Satnami Sundarlal son of Shyamlal Kashyap ^ Both of them resident Village Ghuru, Tahsil Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. 3. /^^' Civil Revision Under Section 115 of The Code OfCivil Procedure. XI-HC-22 -s-^'^ira^r.'^w^. ici^i'"i< ^n^T'^T t^n^^^T '^Nr^rftcT •t- "HW^Ii"W^l^ qt^"""""""""""""""""/'^ 2GO •^^.r" 'STT^T ^^TT^R: Trf^T Shri Pandey, Cou^^ Heard on adiiiissioH. ^This Revision been 24.3,2006 passecl iii Exec.titioi^. Civil Judge Class-I, Bilaspur, sel for fh.e applicaiits, It appeai's that by t?ie-s4 fhe objectbns of the tlie C,P,C, The/objectJDns self-acqu.ired properly ; of theii| pd onler, the Executmg' Court piDperty. purchased by fhe eai|nings • of fhe •joiut faoiily aiid . fhe decree regaj:ding directioii to' ex- iii law aiid tiie executiou of tlie done, tha-t the said Court caiinot go b< In the opuiipn oftiiis Cou a riglit preposition of law. An the decree nor can it qiiestiou i1 there is mi exception to tiiis m.1 iii the Court passiiig it ajid ifth Executiiig Court caii entertaiii decree is a uulUty aiid caii refi ^raf^rah WRTt' ^ fe^ ^(^!T "^ ^if^p? ^T^r dii'ected agaio.st. the order dated Case No.69-A/2002 by tlie Thii'd ipplicante under Section 47 of that the suit were uot. -fhe father the were • fhe :cute a sale-deed of the joiiit' fasziily propeit}^ holcliiig it to be setf-ac^iiired propei^ of flie father is bad baid clause of the decree caiinof be The Executmg Coiirt disi^iissed the said application holdiiig iyond tlie terms ofthe decree. ^t, ttie Execzitiiig Court has applied pxecutiiig Court cao.not go beliiiid legaiity or correctness, However, t aiicl fhat is that where the decree souglit to be executed is a nulltty for lack of mherent jurisdiction |s exception is fliere, then ouly, the ^p. objection on the ground tliat tiie |.se to execute the d.ecree aiicl this will not ajB.ouut fo gomg'behui|.d tl^e decree, because tlie decree ^^fe^ ww^w' XI-HC-22 W^T'^1 t^ri^ '3Ti^T ^^i4i ^rfi^ ^K./!::.::;.^^ Sl®% ^^ ^TPITQT?. '^TfrOT^, ^3<nmy ww?n'^w^C.^.<q'o..gs-/2^^ "^ 20® '^•<8?' 'sn^r'^TI^R TI^T , --2 } beiiig null aiid void, fhe.re woi see Am- 1977 S.C. S\ which AIR 1954 SC 340 aiid I do not feid any reason| the Exectitiiig Coiul. The Reyision has 110 metit ^RFri^FTt^' 'HRoTf ^ f^st T^gTT ^3:{^P?^?^T Ud reaUy be no clecree at aU, Please t^S^ m MR19628C 199ai'e foUowed. to iiiterfere with the order.passed by it and fhe saine is clismissed, -_-A__ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge K