- (1.)These three civil revision petitions arise out of execution proceedings taken in E P.No 8 of 1973 in O.S. 43/72 on the file of the Dist. Court, Khamman. The petitioner is the same in all the civil revision, petition. He is the 2nd defendant in the suit against whom and another, viz., the 1st defendant in the suit, a decree was passed in the suit for a sum of over Rs. 40,000/-. In execution of the said decree the respondent herein viz., the decree-holder filed E.P. No,8/73 for purposes of arrest of both the judgment debtors including the petitioner herein. In those proceedings, the petitioner filed EA.No. 17/73, out of which C R.P No. 417 of 1974 has arisen, contending that the decree passed by the Dist. Court in O.S 43 of 1972 is a nullity. Therefore it is incapable of execution alleging that the defendants in the suit, viz, the petitioner and the 1st defendant were admittedly residing in, a village called Mandapally. Kothagudem Taluk, Khammam district which is in the agency area and the suit filed in the District Court could not have been filed validty against them, the agency courts only having jurisdiction against them as provided under the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules. The suit was filed in the Dist. Court, Khammatn on the allegation that though the defendants were residing in the agency area, the tuit promissory note on the basis of which the suit was filed was executed at a place called Wyra which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Dist. Court, Khammam and the cause of action for the suit had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Dist. Court, Khammam. The petitioner filed E. A. 20/73 put of which C.R.P No. 418 of 1972 has arisen for purposes of examining a witness to show that even the suit promissory note was executed only at at the place in the agency area and not at Wyra, within the jurisdiction of the Dist. Court. E A, No. 29 of 1972 out of which C.R.P. No. 419 of 1974 has arisen WPS. filed by the petitioner to conduct an enquiry in E. A. No. 17. of 1973. Of course this application is unnecessery. Even without this application, E-A. No. 17/73 any way has to be enquired into. Accordingly the lower court rightly dismissed this application and straightaway even now it can be said that there are absolutely no ments in C R.P. No. 419 of 1974 and nothing more need be said about this in this order except to dismiss the sams.
(2.)As regards E.A.No. 20/73 also there is not much to be said in favour of the petitioner. He filed that application in order to prove for the first time in execution proceedings that the cause of action for the suit also has arisen in the agency area and not within the jurisdiction of the Dist Court, Khammam.
(3.)The executing court cannot go into that matter now. The executing court cannot go behind the decree What all can be urged and considered by the executing court if it appears on the face of the record is only the question whether the decree is a nullity and is therefore inexecutable.. Therefore the lower court rightly dismissed E.A. No. 20/73. The main question for consideration is with regard to the plea taton by the petitioner in E.A. No. 17/73 that the decree passed by the Dist. Court, Khammam is a nullity on the face of it and therefore incapable of execution. No doubt it is an admitted fact that the two defendants in the suit are residents of agency area and the suit could have been filed in the agency court on that ground. But the fact remains that the cause of action for the suit has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Dist. Court, Khammam, the suit promissory note having been executed within that court's jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, it is for consideration whether the Dist. Court, Khammam could not have tried the suit at all and whether there was want of jurisdiction in trying the suit. The jurisdiction of a court may be inherent or territorial or pecuniary or personal. But it is only the lack of inherent jurisdiction that will render all acts of court null and void and any decree passed by it will be a nullity. Consent cannot give such a jurisdiction. Objection to want of such a jurisdiction cannot be waived. In the case of territorial, pecuniary or personal jurisdiction, the position is different. Objection to such jurisdiction if not raised at the proper time cannot be raised subsequently and the decree passed in such a case is not a nullity. On this principle the executing court cannot entertain any objection that the court which passed the decree could not have entertained the suit for want of territorial, pecuniary or personal jurisdiction. In the case of inherent jurisdiction, the lack of it goes to the root of the competence of the court to try such a case and renders the decree a nullity. A decree which is a nullity is void and can be declared to be void by every court in which it is presented. The executing court, can. therefore, entertain an objection that a decree is a nullity. and can refuse to execute the decree. Only in such a case there is really no going behind the decree for there is really no decree at all Decrees are nullities for instance when they are passed against dead persons aad the court passing the decrees have no jurisdiction to try suits of that nature.