JUDGMENT

B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. : In this Civil Revision Petition challenge is made to the order dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar dismissing petitioner’s application under Section 47, C.P.C. filed in Execution Case No.8 of 2010.

2.Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company having its registered office at Plot No.1, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-7, Dist: Khurda. The opposite parties are the partners of an unregistered Partnership firm, carrying on business in the name and style of “Super Impex”. Office of the said Partnership firm is situated at Dared, Jamnagar-361004, Gujarat. In the year 2009, the partners of the aforesaid firm as plaintiffs filed a suit bearing Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 before the Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar, Gujarat for recovery of money against he present petitioner-company as defendant claiming inter alia that the petitioner-company is engaged in manufacturing of LPG valve etc. and used to purchase assorted brass rods from opposite parties-firm for their business. In one occasion, the petitioner purchased assorted brass rods weighing 11066.550 kg @ Rs.204.50 per kg., for a total worth of Rs.24,98,581/- from the opposite party-firm. The plaintiffs-opposite parties’ further case is that said goods were duly delivered to the petitioner-company through England Road Transport Pvt. Ltd. Against the said transaction, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing Cheque No.154667 dated 01.08.2009 for Rs.24,98,581/- drawn on the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Bhubaneswar. However, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement of “Insufficient Opening Balance”. Thereafter, opposite parties filed a Civil Suit bearing Summary Suit No.25 of 2009 for recovery of their dues. Despite service of suit summons on the petitioner-company, the company could not appear in the case due to several reasons which were beyond its control. The suit before the Jamnagar Court was decreed ex parte against the petitioner. Opposite parties thereafter initiated Execution Case before the Jamnagar Court which has ultimately been transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar for execution of the said ex parte decree passed in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner after getting notice of the execution case appeared and filed objection under Section 47, CPC for dismissal of the execution case with various grounds including the question of maintainability of execution case which was registered as I.A. No.773 of 2010 before the learned Civil (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar after hearing both parties has dismissed I.A. No.733 of 2010 and posted the Execution Case No.8 of 2010 for hearing by order dated 20.08.2011. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

3.Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) is per se illegal, erroneous, arbitrary and beyond the settled principles of law and the Court below has committed serious irregularity in dismissing the application under Section 47, CPC on the ground that the Executing Court has no authority to go beyond the decree. The settled position of law is that a decree obtained by an unregistered partnership firm is a nullity and objection to the executability of the said decree can be raised in the execution case. The decree obtained by unregistered firm in contravention of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act is a nullity and cannot be executed. Such objection can be raised at the stage of execution. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunderlal and Sons v. Yagendra Nath Singh and another, AIR 1976 CALCUTTA 471. The learned Court below has also made gross error by dismissi