An objection regarding the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of a court cannot be raised in execution proceedings unless the objector can show that the lack of jurisdiction has prejudiced their case on merits.

1. On Jan. 25, 1973, Neki Ram, respondent filed a suit against Narain Kumar petitioner and his father Lachhman Dass for rendition of accounts, possession of stall No. B-8/118 situate at Main Road, Samana, District Patiala, as also for the recovery of Rupees 200.00 as damages for breaking the lock and two glass panes of the almirahs and Rs. 800.00 as mesne profits from Oct. 2, 1970 to June 1, 1971, at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per month. The suit was valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 200.00 for rendition of accounts, Rs. 1500.00 for possession, Rs. 200/ for damages and at Rs. 800.00 for mesne profits. The suit was pending in the Court of Shri P.S. Bajaj, Additional Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Patiala, on Dec. 7, 1973, on which date the parties compromised. The trial Court granted a decree for Rs. 5,100.00 and for possession of the stall (shop) in favour of Neki Ram, respondent and against Narain Kumar petitioner and his father Lachhman Dass. The decretal amount could be paid in two equal instalments of Rs. 2550.00 each on April 15, 1974 and Dec. 15, 1974. In case of payment, of both the instalments on the due dates the entire decree, including the one for possession of stall was to stand fully satisfied and in the event of default of payment of any instalment in time the decree-holder could recover the decretal amount due as also the possession of the stall in dispute. The judgment-debtors paid the first instalment of Rs. 2550.00 in time. The amount of second instalment was remitted to the decree-holder by money order on Dec. 23, 1974. The amount of second instalment having not been paid by the due date, that is Dec. 15, 1974, the decree-holder sought the execution of the decree. The petitioner filed an objection petition under Sec.47 of the Civil P. C. which was resisted by Neki Ram decree-holder.

2. The executing Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the decree in question is a nullity and without jurisdiction? If so, to what effect?

2. Whether the execution petition is not maintainable?

3. Whether the validity of decree in question cannot be challenged by the Objector?

3. The executing Court vide order dt. Sept. 6, 1976, found all the issues in favour of the decree-holder and against the petitioner-judgment-debtor and held that the former was entitled to the recovery of the decretal amount due as also the possession of the stall. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the executing Court dt. Sept. 6, 1976, which was dismissed by District Judge, Patiala, vide order dt. April 23, 1977. It is against this order that the present revision is directed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the amount of second instalment was tendered to the decree-holder some days before Dec. 15, 1974, but he did not accept it. The decree-holder did not approach the petitioner or his father to receive the amount of second instalment on Dec. 15, 1974. It was under these circumstances that the amount of the second instalment was remitted to him by money order on Dec. 23, 1974. The judgment-debtor did not commit any default in payment of the second instalment. The executing Court as also the appellate Court have wrongly recorded a contrary finding. The contention is without merit. The Courts below have rightly held that the petitioner and his father had failed to pay the amount of the second instalment to the decree-holder on Dec. 15, 1974.

5. The other point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decree dt. Dec. 7, 1973, was passed by Shri P.S. Bajaj, who exercised the powers of a Third Class Subordinate Judge. His pecuniary jurisdiction was Rs. 2,000.00 . He had no jurisdiction to pass the decree for Rs. 5100.00 against the petitioner and his father. The decree dt. Dec. 7, 1973, is a nullity and cannot be executed. Reliance has been placed on Kalu Ram V/s. Hanwant Ram, AIR 1934 Lah 488 (FB); Ganga Ram V/s. Hakim Rai, AIR 1934 Lah 545 (2) (FB) and Basant Singh V/s.