The main legal point established in the judgment is the fundamental principle that a decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, emphasizing the impact of jurisdictional defects on the authority of the court to pass a decree.

JUDGMENT :

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.

1. In this revision petition petitioner assails order dated 22.07.2013 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred as the trial/executing court), whereby, in the proceedings for execution of a decree dated 24.04.1997 commenced by the decree holder, Zenab Begum, herein respondent No. 6 (now dead), petitioner's application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) has been dismissed.

2. A few background facts relevant for and leading to filing of this petition are these. Far back in the year, 1997, the decree holder filed a suit for pre-emption in the trial/executing court against her son, Mushtaq Ahmad Khan (vendor), as defendant No. 1, herein respondent No. 1 and Ghulam Nabi Shah (vendee), as defendant No. 2, herein respondent No. 2 (now dead), for enforcing her right of prior purchase in respect of a piece of land including a shed thereon, which the respondent No. 1 had sold to respondent No. 2 by virtue of a sale deed registered on 30.01.1991. During pendency of that suit, respondent No. 2 further sold the suit property to respondents 3, 4 and 5 and the decree holder (plaintiff) therefore, amended the plaint by impleading respondents 3, 4 and 5 as additional defendants therein. Respondents (defendants) 1 and 2 did not contest the suit at all and were set ex-parte. Respondents (defendants) 3 to 5 were also set ex-parte, however, after they had filed their written statement. The suit was allowed and decreed by the trial court in favour of the decree holder (plaintiff) vide ex-parte judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997. The decree holder filed execution proceeding on 04.12.1997 against respondents 1 to 5. The petitioner challenged the ex-parte judgment and decree in OWP No. 45/1998 before this Court with the prayer for quashing the same, claiming that he has acquired right in the suit property on the basis of an oral gift made in his favour by respondents (defendants) 3 to 5. A learned Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.04.2007 allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.06.1997. The judgment of the learned Single Bench, however, was set aside by a learned Division Bench in LPA No. 73/2007 filed by the decree holder (plaintiff). The petitioner preferred SLP against the judgment of the learned Division Bench in the Supreme Court, which he, however, withdrew, reserving liberty to seek such other redress as may be permissible under law. The SLP, thus, was dismissed accordingly on 26.11.2012. The petitioner thereafter filed application under section 47 of the Code before the trial/executing court. Not only that, the petitioner also filed appeal against the ex-parte judgment and decree before this Court along with application for leave to appeal for not being party to the said judgment and decree as also an application for condonation of delay. Whereas leave to appeal was granted by a learned Single Bench of this Court by the order dated 24.03.2015, LPA against which was dismissed on 20.05.2015, another Bench of this Court, however, dismissed the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 12.10.2017 in COD No. 105/2015 taking the view that, the petitioner having filed objections in terms of section 47 of the Code, he cannot be permitted to prosecute the appeal. The application under section 47 came to be dismissed by the trial/executing court vide order dated 22.07.2013, which is impugned in this revision petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. In the application under section 47 of the Code, the petitioner sought dismissal of the execution proceeding. He, firstly claimed that he has acquired the suit property on the basis of oral gift made in his favour by respondents (defendants/judgment debtors) 3 to 5 and the same has been duly mutated in his favour in the revenue records and that he has acquired the status of a legal representative of the