1. This Revision has been filed by the Petitioners in E.A. No.172 of 2005 in E.P. No.100 of 2002 in O.S. No.77 of 1985 against its dismissal passed by the lower Court, by rejecting the prayer that the final decree passed in O.S. No.77 of 1985 of the file of the learned II Additional Sub-Judge, a nullity and incapable of execution and thereby to dismiss E.P. No.100 of 2002.

2. Heard Ms. P.T. Asha learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. P.B. Balaji appearing for the Second Respondent and Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram, learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent. There is no appearance for the Respondents 1 & 3 for the Revision.

3. The Petitioners before the lower Court are the wife and children of the First Respondent/third parties. The Respondents 1 to 3 were the judgment debtors and the Fourth Respondent is the decree holder in a Suit filed by him for the sale of mortgage property created under an equitable mortgage against the said properties and a final decree has also been passed in terms of the preliminary decree and on the basis of the final decree passed the execution proceedings have been launched by the decree holder in E.P. No.10 of 2002. According to the Petitioners that the Suit was filed by the First Petitioner seeking for maintenance and the same was decreed and a charge has been created on the properties mortgaged by the First Respondent along with other Respondents and therefore, the Execution proceedings launched on the basis of the final decree cannot proceed against the charge decree passed in favour of the First Petitioner.

4. Apart from that it has been contended that the preliminary decree was passed in the Suit O.S. No.77 of 1985 on 11.12.2005 and however, the Fourth Respondent/decree holder had applied to the said Court on passing the final decree in terms of the preliminary decree only on 2.9.1994 which is more than three years.

5. Further more, it has been contended that some of the properties are not within the jurisdiction of the said Court which passed the preliminary decree and final decree and the Trial Court lack of territorial jurisdiction and the decree passed for want of inherent jurisdiction would certainly be null and void and on that score also the decree passed by the Trial Court cannot be executed as a decree passed was a nullity.

6. However, the lower Court had considered all the points raised by the Petitioner and disallowed them and finally dismissed the Petition. Aggrieved by the said decisions, the Petitioners have come forward with this Revision.

7. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit in her argument that the lower Court was not correct in coming to a conclusion that the Petition filed by the Petitioners was not maintainable. She would further submit that the decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.77 of 1985 on 11.12.2005 and subsequently the final decree passed on 30.6.1995 is also nullity since the said Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree when the mortgaged property is not covered under its territorial jurisdiction. She would also submit that the final decree Application was admittedly filed on 2.9.1994 while the preliminary decree was passed on 11.12.2005 and the period in between those two events was more than three years and the limitation for filing the final decree Application from the date of preliminary or from the time fixed for payment as directed in the preliminary decree, would be three years and in the present case it is obviously more than 8 years passed and therefore, the final decree application it is not entertainable and the decree passed on the said application is also a nullity. She would also submit in her argument that the lower Court had come to a wrong conclusion that the validity of the decree cannot be raised in execution proceedings and it should have done at the earliest cannot be applied in respect of the limitation. She would also submit that the judgment of th