An irregular judgment cannot be deemed a nullity and contested in execution; it must be challenged through proper legal channels, affirming that only decrees lacking inherent jurisdiction are non-executable.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The revision throws up an interesting question as to whether non-conformity to Order XX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, can be available to an aggrieved defendant, as judgement debtor, to canvas in an application under Section 47 the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

2.I have heard Mr.R.Ravindran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.K. Sabapathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.Mr.R.Ravindran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner suffered a judgement and decree in O.S.No.3505 of 1997 on 13.09.2005 and though an attempt was made to set aside the ex-parte decree, the petitioner was unsuccessful. He would however, submit that the mandate of Order XX Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, requires the judgement of the trial Court to contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and finally the reasons for such decision. Pointing out to the judgement passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the same clearly offends the definition of a “judgement” under Section 2 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and there is a clear flouting of the mandate of Order XX Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that the decree is a nullity in the eye of law, which entitles the revision petitioner to attack the executability of the decree by invoking Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the following decisions:

1. Mohandas Issardas and others Vs. A.N.Sattanathan and others reported in (1955) AIR (Bombay) 113.

2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur reported in (1989) AIR (SC) 38.

3. State of Haryana Vs. Ranbir @Rana reported in (2006) AIR (SC)1796.

4. Asma Lateef and another Vs. Shabbir Ahmad and others reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 602 .

5. Balraj Taneja and another Vs. Sunil Madan and another reported in (1999) 8 SCC 396 .

6.Rafique Bibi (D) by Lrs. Vs. Sayed Waliuddin (D) by Lrs and others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 287 .

7. Sandhiya Rani and others Vs. A. Shanmugam in CRP.Nos.1873 and 1932 of 2023 dated 30.10.2023.

8. Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Ltd reported in (2011) 3 CTC 168 .

9. Ramachandran Vs. Balakrishnan reported in (2020) 6 CTC 843 .

10. K.Balakrishnan Vs. S.Dhanasekar reported in (2018) 2 CTC 859 .

11. R.Stella Vs. V.Antony Francis reported in (2019) 5 LW 161 .

12. N.Maheswari Vs. Mariappan and others reported in (2013) 2 CTC 388 .

13. Balakrishnan Vs. Kaliaperumal in CRP(MD).Nos.234 & 330 of 2021 dated 06.12.2021.

14. JST.Nallapa Vs. C.Mahendiran in CRP.No.2238 of 2019 dated 24.08.2023.

5.Per contra, Mr.P.K.Sabapathi, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the suit in O.S.No. 3505 of 1997 was filed for recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and mesne profits. The revision petitioner appeared and filed a written statement, claiming that he was inducted as a tenant by the predecessor in right and title of the respondents herein and he was in lawful occupation. The petitioner however did not appear at trial and an ex-parte decree was passed on 13.09.2005. He would further contend that when the petitioner had filed an application to set aside the ex- parte decree, along with an application to condone delay of 1753 days in I.A.No.1697 of 2010 and the said petition was also dismissed on merits on 15.09.2014, it was not open to the petitioner to over and again reagitate the same issue that the judgement and decree is a nullity.

6.The learned counsel, Mr.P.K.Sabapathi, would further state that after the dismissal of the condone delay application filed by the petitioner, the respondents represented the execution petition in the year 2017 and notice was sent to the revision petitione