Point of Law: When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amit Manohar Sahai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, assisted by Sri P.C.Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.K.Shukla, as well as Sri Amul Kumar Tyagi, learned Advocates appearing for the contesting respondents.

2. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the District Inspector of Schools and State of Uttar Pradesh have assailed the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions, Judge, FTC No. 3, Basti in Civil Revision No. 160 of 2007 whereby the order passed by the executing court dated 6.8.2007 has been set aside and thus objection raised vide section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) by the petitioners, judgment debtors has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that sole respondent, (hereinafter referred to as "decree holder") instituted a suit claiming relief in the nature of a direction to defendants in the suit, namely, the Committee of Management, National Inter College, Haraiya Basti, Narendra Bahadur Singh, Manager of National Inter College, Basti, Principal, National Inter College (defendants first set), the District Inspector of Schools, Basti and State of U.P. through District Magistrate (defendant second set) for payment of salary from 08.07.1991 till disposal of the suit and also direction in the nature of permanent injunction against defendant from interfering with the working of decree holder as a teacher in the institution.

4. The decree holder claimed to have been appointed vide selection initiated under the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 21st April, 1991 and selection made on 7.7.1991. He claimed to have been appointed on 8th July, 1991 and District Inspector of Schools was intimated same day, however, there is no mention in the plaint case that District Inspector of Schools ever accorded financial approval to the Ad hoc appointment of the decree holder pursuant to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Second order 1981 (for short Removal of Difficulties Order) as the law stood on that date. However, decree holder claimed to have continued with appointment as never disapproval order was passed, his work and and conduct was found always to be satisfactory.

5. In the aforesaid suit, notices were issued to the defendant respondents, judgment debtors but none of them have appeared and so consequently, suit proceeded ex parte. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 24th January, 2005 in following terms:

^^oknh dk okn lO;; fMØh fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknhx.k dks LFkkbZ :i ls funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og oknh ds lsok dky ds nkSjku oknh ds v/;kiu dk;Z es fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk us igqpkos rFkk oknh dks fu;qfDr dh frfFk fnukad 7&7&1991 ls fu.kZ; dh frfFk rd dk cdk;k leLr osru ,oa HkRrk fu.kZ; dh frfFk ds nks ekg ds vUnj Hkqxrku dj nsosA rFkk Hkfo"; es Hkh fu;ekuqlkj oknh dks osru ,oa HkRrk vkfn vnk djsA

Suit is decreed with cost. Defendants are permanently injuncted from interfering with with teaching work of the plaintiff during his service period and are directed to pay the entire remaining dues of salary and other allowances from the date of his appointment i.e. 07.07.1991 within two months and further continue to pay salary and the allowance in future as well.

(english translation by this Court)”

6. Thus, defendants were permanently injuncted from interfering with the working of the plaintiff as teacher in the institution during his service period and entire dues towards salary and other allowances w.e.f. 08.07.1991 till date of judgment were directed to be paid within two months and so also direction was for continued for payment of salary and other allowances in future as well.

7. In respect of the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21st January, 2005, a restoration application bearing no. 14 of 2006 was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for recalling of the ex parte decree but the said restoration application was dismisse