MANOJ MISRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.10, Deoria in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2013, whereby objection of the petitioners, under Section 47 C.P.C., has been rejected. The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Deoria in Civil Revision 64 of 2016 by which the revision preferred against the order dated 19.10.2016, has been dismissed.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as follows: Original Suit No. 1206 of 1969 was instituted by one Radha Krishna (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 4 to 6), against predecessor-in interest of the petitioners for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 31.10.1968 executed by Lalji in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 22.01.1975. Against which an appeal was filed which was dismissed and the decree has since become final. When the decree was put to execution, the petitioners filed an objection, under Section 47 C.P.C., inter alia, on the ground that the decree was a nullity inasmuch as the civil court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the suit, which was an agricultural land and as such the suit was barred by section 331 of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act. Both the courts below rejected the objection taken by the petitioners, inter alia, on grounds: (a) that from the evidence brought on record it appeared that the plaintiff-decree holder was recorded as an occupant along with the defendant and since relief for cancellation of a sale-deed could only be granted by the civil court, the jurisdiction of the civil court was not barred by section 331 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act; and (b) that objection as regards jurisdiction, though raised, was given up before the trial court, therefore, the said plea cannot be raised because, by virtue of sub-section (1-A) of section 331 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, the plea as regards jurisdiction of the civil court should not only be raised at the earliest possible stage but for it to succeed at the appellate or revisional stage it has to be established that there had been consequent failure of justice. It was thus held that the execution court cannot go behind the decree and, in any case, it was not a case where the Court that decreed the suit lacked jurisdiction. ;