- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.5.1978 of the Subordinate Judge First Class, Phagwara, declining to execute the award of the Arbitrator under the Co-operative Societies Act on the ground that the Arbitrator did not give reasons for his conclusions and thus the order, being non-speaking one, was a nullity.
(2.) I am afraid the order under challenge is palpably illegal, for, in my opinion, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree unless it comes to the conclusion that the same is a nullity. No decree is a nullity if the Court that passed it had the inherent jurisdiction and the parties involved were duly represented. In the present case, admittedly, as also it has been held by the executing Court itself, the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to pass the award and the affected parties had the notice and were afforded due opportunity. The infirmity of the omission of the reasons from the award would not render the award as non-est and a nullity. The decree, which can be considered non-est and a nullity, is the one which a Court having no inherent jurisdiction to pass had passed or it was a decree against a dead person or against a person who at no stage was legally present before the Court which passed the decree or the order.
(3.) The decision in Mathra Dass v. The State of Punjab and others, 1975 PunLJ 42 was not only made in a different context, but also it was not laid down therein that a non-speaking award would be non-est and a nullity.;