A compromise decree remains enforceable despite later jurisdiction challenges, provided the jurisdiction issue is evident from the decree itself.

ORDER :

T.R. Ravi, J.

C.R.P. No.369/2025 has been filed challenging an order dated 29.03.2025 in E.A.No.679/2023 in E.P.No.99/2021 passed by the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. C.R.P. No.371/2025 has been filed challenging an order dated 18.03.2025 in E.A.No.680/2023 in E.P.No.167/2021 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioner and the respondent in these cases are the same. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder. The suits were filed by the respondent for realisation of amounts. O.S.No.16/2018 was instituted on 10.01.2018 and O.S.No.35/2018 was instituted on 03.05.2018. The suit were initiated after the coming into force of the Commercial Courts Act in 2013 which became operative in Kerala only with effect from 05.03.2020. As such, these were suits which were pending when the came into force.

2. Pending the suits, the parties had arrived at a settlement and the plaintiff gave up substantial claim which resulted in a decree on 10.11.2020 in CRP No.369/2025 and 29.09.2020 in CRP No.371/2025. The decree was passed after the Commercial Courts Act was made applicable in Kerala. The decree holder filed execution petitions since the compromise decree was not honoured. The petitioner thereupon filed applications contending that the decree is not executable since it has been passed by a court which lacks inherent jurisdiction. The execution court considered the objection and rejected the plea relying on a judgment of this Court in Kalleri Kunhammed v. K.V. Muhammed (2023 (1) KHC 38) which was rendered in similar circumstances. The said order has been challenged in these civil revision petitions.

3. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments inMeenachil Rubber Marketing and Processing Co- operative Society Ltd. v. Kadaplamattom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. ( 2025 (2) KHC 239 ),Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad (2024 KHC 6029),Balvant N. Viswamitra And Others V. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs. and Others (2004 KHC 1643),Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs V. Dr.Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. (2024 KHC 8471),Antony V. Thandiyode Plantations (Pvt.) Ltd. ( 1995 KHC 342 ) andSurendran C.K. V. Kunhimoosa ( 2023 (7) KHC 257 )

4. The counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Adbul Rehman and Others ( 1970 KHC 439 ) Rafique Bibi (Dead) by Lrs V. Sayed Waliuddin (Dead) by Lrs. And Others ( 2004 KHC 356 ) and Kalleri Kunhammed V. K.V. Muhammed (2023 (1) KHC 38) in support of his contentions.

5. The facts are not in dispute. The only question is whether at the stage of execution of a compromise decree a contention can be raised that a decree itself was a nullity and hence not executable since the court which passed the decree did not have jurisdiction after coming into force of the Commercial Courts Act .

6. In Meenachil Rubber (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that a plea of inherent lack of jurisdiction can be taken at any stage of the proceedings or even in collateral proceedings. The court held that unlike an objection to a territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, inherent lack of jurisdiction renders the proceedings before the forum void. In Asma Lateef (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Section 47 of the Code Of Civil Procedure an execution court can dismiss an execution application if the decree put to execution is unmistakably found to suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court that made the same, rendering it a nullity in the eye of law. The court however said that the lack of jurisdiction must be patent on the face of the decree to enable an executing court to conclud