SHEIKH WAHID Vs. GOKULCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF /respondent had instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of land measuring 6.821 Hactare. for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/ - contending that earnest money of Rs. 6,000/ - had been paid thereunder. That suit was heard and decreed ex parte. Application made to set aside the ex parte decree was also rejected. Hence, this appeal.

(2.) THE short ground which Shri Roman has urged in this appeal is one of pure law and raw law. Counsel has contended that even if in the trial Court that had not been agitated and in the objection, that had not been stated, the defendant/appellant can agitate that contention because that appertains to trial Court's jurisdiction to pass any order at any stage in the suit. Shri Chaturvedi has argued forcefully that by his pleadings the defendant/appellant is estopped. However, that contention, I find hopelessly hollow and difficult to follow. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity at all times, at all stages, in all proceedings. One does not have to invariably plead nullity and prove nullity; no pleading is necessary if nullity arises from total want of jurisdiction of the Court to pass the order which may be annulled at any stage by the superior Court.

(3.) ORDER 9, Rule 6 (1) (a), CPC, I quote: