IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 CRP.No. 778 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/09/2008 IN EP 78/2007 IN OS.637/1988 of DISTRICT JUDGE,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/JUDGEMENT DEBTORS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MM & C) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, REGIONAL STORES KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KALLAYI, CALICUT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, REGIONAL STORES KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, KUNDARA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, REGIONAL STORES, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ALWAYE. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR.)SC,KSEB SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- LALIT MITTAL, S/O.SHRI.GAJANAND MITTAL DAMPIER NAGAR TAHSIL, MADHURA DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.778 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.78 of 2007 of District Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from the decree for payment of money in O.S.No.637 of 1988 of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madhura (UP). On the request of the respondent/decree holder, decree certificate was transmitted to the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram for execution and within six months from the date of receipt of the decree certificate, respondent launched execution. Petitioners objected to the execution of the decree on several grounds one of which is that the decree is not executable since the court which passed the decree lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned District Judge considered the objection and overruled the same. Decree was found to be executed. That order is under challenge in this petition. 3. Though several grounds are urged in the objection to the execution of the decree, the only point now raised before me by the learned counsel is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree to entertain the suit. Learned counsel contends that going by Section 20 CRP No.778/2008 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') and the agreement between the parties, the only court which had jurisdiction to try the suit is the court at Thiruvananthapuram and not the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Madhura (UP). Learned District Judge considered the question and found that the court which passed the decree had the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. 4. Now, I am concerned with the question whether the decree is null and void as contended by the petitioners. That, the court which passed the decree even if it is so assumed, did not have the territorial jurisdiction cannot mean that the said court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree. Lack of territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the court. Petitioners had raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), but the issue was answered against the petitioners. Learned counsel contends that the decree is under challenge in the High Court of Allahabad. An objection regarding want of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised at execution stage. It has been so held in Luiz v. Abdul Rahiman & another (1986 KLN 452). In Rafique Bibi v. Sayed Waliuddin((2004) 1 SCC 287), the Hon'ble Supreme Court drew a distinction between an illegal decree and a decree which is null and void. Assuming that lack of territorial jurisdiction made the decree illegal, that did not tantamount to the decree being null and void preventing the executing court from executing the decree. If that be so, learned District Judge is right in holding that the decree is executable. CRP No.778/2008 3 This Civil Revision Petition therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.2389 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks