1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.111 of 2010 [Smt. Shantabai w/o Narayanrao Ramelwar and others v. Smt. Gopikabai Sakkaramji Borewar (Dead) and another] Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri V.K. Paliwal, Advocate for Applicants. Shri Sanjay Doifode, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 6 th January, 2011 This civil revision application challenges the order dated 11-10-2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, rejecting the application Exhibit 13 for dismissal of the execution proceedings filed by the applicants. The applicants are the judgment-debtors and the decree for eviction and possession has been passed against them by the judgment and order dated 18-7-1996 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1399 of 1992. The said decree has attained finality. In Regular Darkhast No.509 of 1996 filed by the decree-holder, an application Exhibit 13 was filed for dismissal of the execution proceedings on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree. According to the decree-holder, it was the dispute between the landlord and tenant or licensee and for that purpose, the competent court to entertain, try and decide such a suit is the Court of Small Causes. The 2 decree passed by the Civil Court is, therefore, a nullity in the eyes of law and hence the execution petition has to be rejected. The Executing Court has recorded the finding that the point of jurisdiction was raised by the judgment-debtors in the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.1399 of 1992 and the same has been decided by all the Courts. Shri Paliwal, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that there is no reference in the judgments of any of the Courts to the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain, try and decide the suit and hence it was not decided in the earlier proceedings. The contention cannot be accepted for the reason that if the issue was raised and it was not decided, then it is a question, which pertains to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The appeal upto this Court has been dismissed. The Executing Court has recorded the finding that there was no landlord-tenant relationship and the judgment-debtor No.1 was only permissive occupier of the suit property. It has further recorded the finding that the judgment-debtor No.1 has claimed the ownership by way of adverse possession in the suit. In view of this, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.1399 of 1992 was a nullity. No interference is, therefore, called in the view taken by the Executing Court. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl