The Branch Manager of a Bank is a 'principal officer' of the Bank and, by virtue of his position, is the most competent person to sign and verify the pleadings in a suit filed by the Bank. The Branch Manager also has the authority to file the suit on behalf of the Bank, either under O. XXIX, R. 1 of the Code or under the regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India.

HARILAL AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS application in revision under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. , which is by the judgement-debtor whose objection to the executability of the decree in question has been overruled by the executing court, raises an interesting question as to whether a decree passed on the basis of a plaint signed, verified and filed by the Branch Manager of a bank, was a nullity and thus inexecutable.

( 2 ) THE decree-holder Bank (opposite party No. 1) instituted a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,524. 27 from the petitioner and another, being the outstanding balance in a loan account against them. The said suit was decreed on contest and after passing a preliminary decree for the said amount, the final decree for sale of the hypothecated goods was also passed by the trial court and ultimately the decree was put into execution.

( 3 ) THE judgement-debtor filed a petition under S. 47 of the Code challenging the validity of the said decree, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff Bank being represented by the Branch Manager of Puri and the plaint having been signed by him, the suit was not properly instituted and, therefore, the decree was a nullity. It further appears that another point that the suit should have been filed in the court of a Tribunal as provided under S. 11 of the Industrial Tribunal Act has, however, not been pressed before me.

( 4 ) THE objections were refuted by the decree-holder Bank in the rejoinder and the learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order has also overruled the contention of the petitioner.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that in the trial Court no such objection either of the nature of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court or any, infirmity in the institution of the suit or presentation of the plaint seems to have been raised. All that I find from the discussions in the order of the court below is that the decree was challenged as being a nullity on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court to pass the same.

( 6 ) IT is a well known proposition that the executing court cannot go behind that decree and must execute the same as it stands and according to its terms. Apart

from nullity for inherent lack of jurisdiction or having been passed against a dead person or obtained by fraud, an executing court cannot refuse to execute a decree on any other ground; except on account of any subsequent development, however, the decree ceases to be executed according to its terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to some authorities on the point that if the decree is a nullity, the same cannot be executed. As the proposition is well settled and beyond any controversy I need not refer to any of them to unnecessarily lengthen my judgement.

( 7 ) COMING to the question of jurisdictional defect of the court passing the decree, it must be made clear that the question of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction of that court cannot be allowed to be raised in an execution proceeding for the first time unless it raises a question of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The propositions are so well settled that I do not think it necessary to refer to any citation and suffice it may to refer to only one case of the Supreme Court in Chandrika Misir v. Bhaiyalal, AIR 1973 SC 2391. If it is proved that the decree is a nullity it cannot be executed, but the want of jurisdiction must appear on the face of the record.

( 8 ) NEITHER from the discussion. of the matter in the impugned order I find any question having been raised regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction of the trial court, nor any such argument as indicated above was raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 9 ) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel was based upon R. 1 of O. XXIX of the Code that the decree-holder being a Bank, the Manager of the Puri Branch, although that was the branch concerned, has no right to sign and verify the pleading in order to present the same. Rule 1 of