COOLTECH INDUSTRIES Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision application is directed against the order dated 27-9-1993 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur on the application of the applicants moved under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that: The opposite party Dena Bank filed a suit for a claim against the applicants under Order 37, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The procedure is given is Rule 3. According to the procedure, summons were served on the defendants in the suit. Except defendant No. 3 none appeared. The decree was passed. When the decree was put to execution, the applicants moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the decree, which was an ex parte decree so far as they were concerned. The application for setting aside the decree is pending for consideration. When decree was set in motion by means of execution, the applicants moved the trial Court for staying the execution of the decree for the duration the application under Order 9, Rule 13 is decided. The trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 27-9-1993. Against this order, the applicants have come to this Court by means of present revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that the decree was a nullity and was not executable and in this sequence it was submitted that though the summons were served on them, they were not obliged to appear before the Court as the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and for this reason they did not appear. The submission is sans in substance. If a suit is filed in the Court which has no jurisdiction, then it is for the parties concerned to appear before the Court and argue the question regarding jurisdiction. Even if the Court has wrongly decided its jurisdiction, then the appeal would lie against such a decree as if the decree was passed with jurisdiction.