A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be executed.

1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. On 6-10-1945 Basant Singh and Bhola Singh appellants instituted a money suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,500.00 in the Court of Adalat Bahadur Kapurthala. While this suit was pending, Kapurthala and certain other States joined to form a State named as Pepsu (Patiala and East Punjab States Union). It appears that the Court of Adalat Bahadur Kapurthala was abolished and the suit then went over to a Sub Judge who was exercising second class powers and could entertain suits only up to the pecuniary limit of Rs. 5,000.00 . Nobody pointed out the defect of jurisdiction to the Sub Judge with the result that he passed an ex parte decree on the 29th of May 1950 awarding to the plaintiffs an amount of Rs. 5,810.00 plus costs amounting to Rs. 1,017/5/-. Judgment-debtors respondents applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on the 28th of June 1950 but the said application was dismissed in default on the 25th of September 1950. On the 11th July 1950 the decree-holders took out execution proceedings before the same Sub Judge who had passed the decree. A notice was issued to the judgment-debtors who filed objections under S. 47. C.P.C. urging that the decree was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court and was therefore a nullity and could not be executed. The decree-holders contested the objections filed by the judgment debtors and the executing Court framed the following two issues on the 16th of January, 1951.

1. Whether the present decree is inexecutable?

2. Whether on account of their conduct the judgment-debtors are estopped from making this objection?

After going into the whole matter the executing Court found both the issues in favour of the judgment-debtors and accepting the objections filed by them held that the decree was inexecutable. The decree-holders filed an appeal in the Pepsu High Court which came up for hearing on the 3rd of July 1952 before Gurnam Singh J. who in view of the conflict of judicial opinion in the various Courts referred the case to a hearing by a large Bench. The case remained pending in the Pepsu High Court till the integration of that High Court with the Punjab High Court and the case has now been placed before us for disposal.

2. Mr. K. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, concedes that the Sub Judge who passed the decree in question had only second class powers and could not entertain suits of which the valuation was more than Rs. 5,000.00 . He, however, urges that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the judgment-debtors having taken no objections to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court passing the decree cannot now raise objections against the executability of the decree. We are afraid we cannot accept this view. There is no doubt that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree must be determined with reference to and is circumscribed by the directions contained in the decree. An executing Court cannot obviously question the legality or correctness of the decree because of the simple reason that a proceeding to enforce a judgment is collateral to the judgment itself and therefore no enquiry into its regularity or validity can be permitted in such a proceeding. The executing Court is bound to execute the decree in spite of the fact that the decree is contrary to law or is erroneous on facts. If, however, what purports to be a decree has been passed by a Court not duly constituted in accordance with law such an adjudication is not a decree at all in the eye of law. Such a decree in the strict sense of the terms is a nullity, a "mere nothing" that need not be set aside and may be disregarded by any Court to which it is presented. In Pirji Safdar Ali V/s. Ideal Bank Ltd., AIR 1949 EP 94, a Full Bench of this Court held as under:

"It is well established rule of law that the executing Court is bound to execute the decree and cannot go behind it. The only exception to this rule is that when the dec