IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS. 5366, 5373 AND 5381 OF 2009 Between in C.R.P.No.5366 of 2009 Susheela ... PETITIONER A N D Syed Afzaluddin (died) and others …RESPONDENTS Between in C.R.P.No.5373 of 2009: Susheela …PETITIONER A N D Syed Afzaluddin (died) and others …RESPONDENTS Between in C.R.P.No.5381 of 2009: Prameela …PETITIONER A N D Syed Afzaluddin (died) and others … RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5366, 5373 and 5381 of 2009 COMMON ORDER : Since the issue involved in these Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. These three Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in dismissing the applications filed under Section 151 C.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to file additional counter in the Execution Petitions raising the plea of jurisdiction and executability of the decree. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The petitioners are judgment debtors. An exparte decree was passed by the Court below directing the petitioners to vacate the premises. When the petitioners failed to vacate the premises, execution petitions were filed by the decree holder. During the pendency of execution petitions, the petitioners filed the present applications seeking permission of the Court to file additional counter in the Execution Petitions taking the plea of jurisdiction. The said applications were dismissed by the Court below. Hence the present civil revision petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-judgment debtors contended that when the Executing Court lacks inherent pecuniary jurisdiction to execute the decrees, the filing of Execution Petitions are not maintainable. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-decree holders contended that the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 as amended in Act 17 of 2005, came into force after filing of the suit, therefore, the Amendment Act has no application to the facts of the present case. 7. No doubt, the jurisdiction aspect can be taken at any time even after passing of the decree. But, there must be prima-facie material to show that the Executing Court lacks jurisdiction and it must be shown that the decree passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction. The Amendment Act came into force on 28.5.2005. If the amendment Act is to be applied, Executing Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. Cause of action for filing the suit arose prior to amendment Act came into force. The suit is filed on 04.05.2005. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the law, which is in force as on the date of filing of the suit, is the law governing the parties. In such a case, the Court, which passed the decree, has got jurisdiction and the orders impugned need no interference by this Court. 8. For the foregoing, the civil revision petitions are devoid of any merit and same are liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU NOVEMBER 12, 2010. YVL. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Civil Revision Petition Nos.5366, 5373 and 5381 of 2009 12.11.2010 (YVL)