PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THE present petition is on behalf of judgment debtor. Suit no. 128 of 1988 was filed for eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in question on the ground that the said accommodation was given to the father of the petitioner who was employee as a part of service. He failed to vacate the said accommodation even after his retirement claiming that certain claim of gratuity is outstanding against the employer. This led to filing of O.S. No. 128 of 1988. The said suit was contested by the father of the petitioner on the ground that the suit is not maintainable as it is a labour dispute. However, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the said decree was put in execution. An objection purporting to be under Section 47 CPC was filed by the petititioner that the decree is nullity and is not executable. The executing court has held that the said plea cannot be raised as it was not found favour in the suit. The executing court cannot go behind the decree. The objection was rejected and the order has been confirmed in revision. The revisional court has found that there is no jurisdictional error in the order of the executing court.
(2.) SRI M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the decree is nullity, the executing court was not justified in refusing to entertain the objection and rejecting it at its threshold. Opposing the said submission, Sri B.K. Birla, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that there is no error in the two orders of the courts below. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) SINCE the objection regarding jurisdiction was raised unsuccessfully in the suit, the said objection cannot be permitted to be raised before the executing court. An executing court cannot go behind a decree. I find no merit in the writ petition.;