R. VISWANATHAN Vs. MUTHUVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in unnumbered E.A.No.Nil of 2017 in E.P.No.174 of 2010 in O.S.No.1384 of 1998, dated 09.03.2017.

(2.) The revision petitioner suffered a decree in the suit. He has not filed any appeal or revision against the judgment and decree passed in the suit. But during the execution, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor seeks to reagitate the factual matrix of the suit. In so far as the executing court is concerned, it cannot go behind the decree unless it is not an enforceable decree or barred by law or passed without jurisdiction. In the instant case, there is no ground raised to make out the decree in-executable one or illegal. On the other hand, the judgment debtor seeks to re-agitate the matter. As long as the decree has attained finality and there is no illegality or un-enforceability of the decree, the executing court is bound to execute the same. The learned Trial Judge has passed a well considered order.

(3.) It is well settled by a judgment of this Court In Meharunnisha Beevi Vs. Mohammed Jackaria [2010 (4) MLJ 130] that mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction does not result in a nullity, when the lack of jurisdiction is not patently found in passing the decree. Such decree should be respected by every party to the said decree and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree, as it would bind both the parties as well as the executing court.