The judgment emphasizes that the jurisdiction of a court to pass a decree is not ousted solely based on the location of the bank where the cheques were dishonoured, and that a decree suffering from illegality, irregularity, or procedural defect can be challenged through legal proceedings or by a superior court.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. Present revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Dasuya vide which objections filed by the petitioner under section 47-A read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. The decree holder filed a summary suit under section 37 of the Code in the Honble High Court of Mumbai. A decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,67,479/- along with interest was passed against the objector.

3. The decree passed by Honble High Court of Mumbai stands transferred to the Executing Court. The objector claimed that the decree is in executable being nullity by raising the following grounds:

(i) The objector has his place of residence and business at Dasuya District Hoshiarpur and therefore, only the civil court at Dasuya had the jurisdiction to try and decide the case and the civil court at Mumbai had no territorial jurisdiction to pass any decree as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Code.

(ii) It was claimed that as the civil court at Mumbai inherently lacked the jurisdiction, there fore, the objections to the decree could be raised even in the execution proceedings.

(iii) Three cheques dated 19.8.2001 for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- were given as security in due course of business which were payable at Dasuya. It was claimed that the cheques were dishonoured at Dasuya and therefore, Dasuya Court had only jurisdiction to pass the decree.

(iv) It was also claimed that the decree was secured by the decree holder by playing fraud by supplying intentionally wrong fact/information and documents.

4. The decree holder appeared in reply to the notice issued and took a plea that the objections were not maintainable as the decree was passed by Honble High Court of Mumbai. It was also claimed that the objections have been filed with mala fide intention only to cause unnecessary delay and that the objections frivolous.

5. On merit, it was claimed that a cause of action has accrued at Mumbai and therefore, Honble High Court of Mumbai had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on its original side. It was also claimed that decree could not be said to be nullity and non est.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code the jurisdiction cannot be given to a court where the plaintiff resides or carries on business. It was also claimed that where the head office of company is situated also does not ipso facto give cause of action to the court.

7. The contention was also raised that parties by way of agreement cannot press the jurisdiction in the court which does not have jurisdiction and thus, it was claimed that the decree passed was nullity and therefore, not executable.

8. The decree holder claimed that decree could not be said to be a nullity as it had been passed by the competent court. Reference was made to the pleadings in the plaint to assert that as part of cause of action had accrued at Mumbai and therefore, as per provisions contained in Section 20 (c) of the Code the suit could be filed where the cause of action in whole or in part has arisen. It was also claimed that the decree could be said to be a nullity if it is passed by the court which lacks inherent jurisdiction and not otherwise.

9. Learned Executing Court rejected the contention of the decree holder that the court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the objections as it was observed that in view of Section 47 of the Code all questions relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of decree is to be dealt with by the Executing Court. It was also held that transferee court has all the powers which the Executing Court has.

10. Learned Executing Court referred to the averments made in the plaint to come to a conclusion whether the Honble High Court of Bombay had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit or not. Learned Executing Court noticed the following averments:

" In para 2 it is allege