SATISH CHANDRA, C.J.: - The decree-holder appellant filed suit No.555 of 1968 in the Court of Munsif (East) Allahabad, for recovery of Rs.1,360/- from the judgment-debtor-respondent. The learned Munsif decreed the suit on May 15, 1972, for Rs.1,088/- only. The decree became final because no appeal or revision etc. was filed by the defendant against it.

2. The decree-holder filed an application for recovery of Rs.1,240-35 in execution of the aforesaid decree. The judgment-debtor appeared and filed an objection under S.47 C. P. C. He, inter alia, pleaded, that the Court which passed the decree (namely, Munsif (East), Allahabad) had no jurisdiction to decree the suit, because the suit was cognizable exclusively by the Judge Small Cause Court, Allahabad. The decree passed by the learned Munsiff was without jurisdiction and a nullity, and was as such inexecutable. The learned Munsiff (East), relying upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Khairullah v. Badri, AIR 1973 All 340 upheld this objection. He held that the decree under execution was a nullity. It was not executable. The application for execution of the decree was dismissed.

3. The plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate Court upheld the findings and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved the plaintiff came to this Court in execution second appeal.

4. Before the learned single Judge a decision by Mr. Justice Gopi Nath in Radhey Shyam v. Komil, 1979 All CJ 141 was cited. In this decision Mr. Justice Gopi Nath distinguished the case of Khairullah (supra), and held that in cases where no objection to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court is taken in that Court and the decree becomes final, the judgment-debtor cannot challenge the decree on the execution side.

5. The learned single Judge hearing this appeal felt that there was a conflict of opinion in this Court, and since the question is of frequent occurrence, an authoritative pronouncement by this Court was needed. He, therefore, referred the case to a Larger Bench. That is how the matter has come before this Bench.

6. The question whether the present suit was cognizable by the Regular Civil Courts or by the Small Cause Courts depends upon a true and correct construction of Ss.15 and 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

7. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provided -

"15. Cognizance of sans by Court of Small Causes. -

(1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes:

(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes;

(3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the Order."

Section 16 then read: -

"16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes. - Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable."

8. The U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1968 (Presidents Act No. 35 of 1968) which came into force on 2nd December, 1968, by S.5 amended S.15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as follows : -

"5. Amendment of Section 15 - In Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) - (a) in sub-section (2) for the words five hundred rupees the words one thousand rupees shall be substituted;

(b) in sub-section (3), for the words one thousand rupees the words two thousand rupees shall be substituted."

9. The result was that with effect from Decembe