- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, reversing on appeal the decision of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9909/- and for a permanent injunction against the State of Haryana and the Notified Area Committee, Industrial Township, Faridabad. The suit was valued for purpose of jurisdiction as follows :- i) Amount Claimed. Rs. 9909/- ii) Value for purpose of injunction. Rs. 1.30/ Total : Rs. 1,0039/- In view of the valuation of the suit, the appeal lay admittedly to this Court under Section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act. Instead, the appeal was preferred in the Court of the District Judge and it has been disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan and others, 1954 AIR(SC) 340. that - "It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties."
(3.) In the instant case, there is want of pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in the Court of the District Judge and, therefore, the decree is a nullity. In this view of the matter, we set aside the decision of the learned Additional District Judge and direct that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the Municipal Committee which was the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 133/13 of 1967 for presentation to the proper Court. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs throughout. I agree. Appeal allowed.;