- (1.)Both these two applications are taken up for hearing for convenience sake. One is taken out by Mr. Rudradeo Chowdhury's client being sole widow of one of the judgment-debtors being the defendant No. 1 since deceased challenging the executability of the decree, and also setting aside and/or recalling of the reference case, and another application is taken out by Mr. Som's client for extension of time to put in deficit Court-fees in terms of the decree passed in the above suit and for redrawing up of the 1decree dated 16th June, 1937.
(2.). Mr. Rudradeb Chowdhury, learned Advocate submits that the decree passed is a nullity because the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit in view of provisions of Section 10 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 consequently to pass decree when admittedly deficit Court-fees was not paid. Moreover, amended copy of the plaint and the writ of summons were not served upon the substituted defendant. As such the decree was passed without any writ of summons being served.
(3.)He argues that the Court having proceeded with the suit and decreed the same contrary to the express bar imposed by law. In such a situation decree is a nullity, not enforceable, and cannot be executed.