1. The Applicant/Petitioner(original Defendant)(judgment debtor) by this Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has challenged the order dated 30 April 2011 passed by the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara below Exhibits 28 and 31 in Special Darkhast No.42 of 2010, whereby both these applications raising objection to the execution proceeding instituted by the Respondent (original Plaintiff) (decree holder) based upon a compromise decree, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune have been rejected.

2. The Memorandum of Understanding cum Agreement to Sell (for short, “the Agreement”) was executed between the Applicant and the Respondent at Mumbai, whereby the Applicant agreed to sell the two properties situated at Mouje Dhangarwadi, taluka: Khandala, District: Satara, for total consideration of Rs.3,60,00,000/out of which Rs.60,00,000 was paid at the time of execution of the Agreement. The balance consideration was to be paid on certain terms and conditions.

3. The relevant clause 22 reads as under:

“The parties hereto agree that in case of any dispute and/or differences arising out of and in respect of the interpretation of the terms and conditions hereof, the same shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Pune.”

There is no dispute that the Applicant’s corporate office is at 301, Landmark Centre, Op. City Prode, Pune Satara Road, Pune-411009.

4. The Respondent filed Special Suit No.886/2008 on 30 April 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune for specific performance of Agreement and for the Sale Deed. The Applicant, by application dated 28 July 2008, under Section 9A of CPC raised an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, as the properties are situated in District-Satara and thereby contended that the Pune Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit. However, the parties arrived at settlement and filed a pursis to that effect. The Court on 14 October 2008 has passed a compromise decree as per the consent terms. The Applicant has not pressed the application and thereby waived the jurisdiction objection.

LACK OF INHERENT JURISDICTION OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

5. It is settled that the validity of a decree can be challenged even in execution proceedings on the ground that the Court which has passed the decree lacks an inherent jurisdiction. But, the objection to its territorial jurisdiction does not go to the competence of the Court and can, therefore, be waived. [1962 (2) SCR 747 – Seth Hiralal Patni v. Sri Kali Nath].

6. It is also clear that in view of Sections 20 and 21 of CPC, the defect as to the place of suing under Sections 15 to 20 may be waived. The defendant may waive the objection and may be subsequently precluded from taking it. [AIR 1966 SC 634Behrein Petroleum Co.Ltd. vs. P.J. Pappu and anr.]. The Apex Court has followed in SubhashMahadevasa Habib Vs. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas & Ors. (2007) 13 SCC 650.

7. The submission of the applicant based upon a Supreme Court Judgment in KiranSingh and ors. v. Chaman Paswan and ors., AIR 1954 SC 340,is that the decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and its validity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon even at the stage of execution and/or even in collateral proceedings and, therefore, such defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties.

8. The Supreme Court in (2005) 7 SCC 791 – Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. And anrhas categorized various aspects of Court’s jurisdiction in the following words:

“30 We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) jurisdiction over the subject-matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction ha