KARTAR SINGH Vs. PRITAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal there is only a short question for decision whether the decree in question is or is not a nullity.

(2.) The decree-holders, who are Appellants in this Court, obtained a decree for Rs. 450/- from the Court of Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri on 30-3-1953, against the judgment-debtors, who are Respondents. There is Adalat Class I at Dhuri, which is a Panchayat Court and according to Section 79(1) (j)(i) of the Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act 2008 Bk., it is the Adalat Class I that entertains civil suits of which the valuation does not exceed Rs. 500/-. Apparently the Adalat Class I at Dhuri had pecuniary jurisdiction in the suit under those provisions, but to make the decree a nullity on the ground that the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try it, it is necessary that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts in suits triable by Panchayat Courts should have been excluded, for if both the Courts' have concurrent jurisdiction, the decree passed by one of them will not be without jurisdiction and a nullity.

(3.) The decree-holders made the execution application on 20-4-1954. A notice of the application was given to the judgment-debtors who in their reply, dated 12-5-1954, stated that they had no other means of satisfying the decree, and that the decretal amount be charged1 upon their house. The house of the judgment-debtors was attached and when it was being put to sale, the judgment-debtors on 3-6-ly54, came forward with an objection that the decree having been passed by a Court which had no pecuniary jurisdiction in the suit Was a nullity and thus the execution case should be dismissed. Their case was that Adalat Class I at Dhuri alone had jurisdiction in the suit of the value below Rs. 500/- and the suit was not instituted in that Court but in the Court of Subordinate Judge 2nd Class at Dhuri which had no jurisdiction to entertain it and consequently to pass a decree in it. The decree-holders contested this objection on the part of the judgment-debtOrs. The executing Court, as also the first appellate Court, have come to the conclusions (a) that the Adalat Class I at Dhuri alone had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class was barred, and (b) that, consequently, the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge 2nd Class being without jurisdiction is a nullity. On these conclusions they have concurred in dismissing the execution application of the decree-holders.