# District Deputy Election Officer/A.D.M, Finance And Revenue & Anr. Revisionists v. Punjab Tent House & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 37
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 57 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/district-deputy-election-officer-a-d-m-finance-and-revenue-anr-revisionists-v-52927
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

12 All. District Deputy Election Officer/A.D.M., Finance And Revenue & Anr. Vs. Punjab Tent
 House & Anr.
37
Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.

17. Office is directed to send a copy of
this
order
to
the
applicant
through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or
e-prison portal in compliance of the order
of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024)
10 SCC 685.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 37
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Civil Revision No. 57 of 2025

District Deputy Election Officer/A.D.M,
Finance And Revenue & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Punjab Tent House & Anr.
 ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether not arraying the State Election
Commission as defendant who is the person
who makes payment for the expenditure
incurred during the elections and due to which
the decree cannot be executed against the
revisionists i.e. the District Deputy Election
Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri and District
Magistrate/District Election Officer, Lakhimpur
Kheri.

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Section
47 & 115- Suit for recovery of amount for
the articles supplied during the Panchayat
Elections filed by the respondent decreed
against which against which First appeal
was filed which was dismissed by the High
Court
against
which
the
present
revisionists preferred an SLP before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also
dismissed- The reason has also been
assigned
for
non
inclusion
of
State
Election Commission as defendant or a
necessary party and those reasons are
that the tender was invited by the
respondent
no.
2
and
after
the
finalization, the agreement was executed
between
the
respondent
no.
1
and
revisionist no. 2 and there was no
agreement
with
the
State
Election
Commission- Executing court cannot go
behind the decree nor can it question its
legality or correctness and the only
exception is if the decree sought to be
executed is a nullity for lack of inherent
jurisdiction, which is not in the present
case- Revision dismissed.(E-15)

Held- The decree has already attained finality
up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now the
Executing court has no other option except to
pass an order for the execution of the decree
and the application under Section 47 of the
C.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri.
(Para 13, 14, 15 & 16)

Case Law Cited
Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkas reported in [AIR
1977 SUPREME COURT 1201]; Periyammal
(dead) By Lrs and Others vs. V. Rajamani and
Another Etc. reported in [AIR 2025 SC (Civil);
1244];

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

List of Keywords
Executing Court cannot go beyond decree; Nor
it questions its legality or correctness; Decree
attained finality; only exception ; lack of
inherent jurisdiction

Case Arising From
Order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri on the
application of the revisionist under Section 47 of
the C.P.C. filed in the execution proceedings.

Appearances for Parties
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rohit Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists,
learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2
and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam
Khan, learned counsel who has filed his
vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent
no. 1, which is to be filed through E-mode
today itself.

2. With the consent of the parties, the
matter is being decided at the admission
stage itself.

3. The present revision has been
preferred under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
the C.P.C.) against the order dated
24.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri on the
application of the revisionist under Section
47 of the C.P.C. filed in the execution
proceedings.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a suit
for recovery of amount for the articles
supplied during the Panchayat Elections
filed by the respondent no. 1 in which the
written statement has been filed by the
revisionists and thereafter, issues were
framed and a final decree has been passed
on 19.02.2016. Against the decree dated
19.02.2016,
the
present
revisionists
preferred a First Appeal No. 60 of 2016
before the High Court which was dismissed
by judgment and order dated 07.04.2025.
Against which the present revisionists
preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which was also dismissed
by judgment and order dated 01.08.2025.

5. After the dismissal of the SLP
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
revisionists preferred a Review Petition No.
156 of 2025 before this Court and by taking
a ground that the decree passed by the trial
court is without jurisdiction for the reason
that the State Election Commission was not
arrayed as defendant. The said review
application
was
also
dismissed
on
23.09.2025.

6. The execution proceedings is
pending since the year 2017. In the said
execution
proceedings,
an
application
under Section 47 of the C.P.C. has been
filed by the revisionists on 10.10.2025,
after the dismissal of the First Appeal, the
dismissal of the SLP and the dismissal of
the review application taking a ground that
the decree cannot be executed for the
reason that the State Election Commission
has not been arrayed as defendant in the
suit before the learned trial court. The said
application of the revisionists has been
rejected by order dated 24.11.2025 and
feeling aggrieved by the same, the present
revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.
has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists
has submitted that the suit was filed
without
making
the
State
Election
Commission as defendant who is the
person who makes payment for the
expenditure incurred during the elections
and due to which the decree cannot be
executed against the revisionists i.e. the
District Deputy Election Officer/Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Lakhimpur
Kheri
and
District
Magistrate/District
Election
Officer,
Lakhimpur Kheri.

8. It is further submitted that for the
impleadment
of
the
State
Election
12 All. District Deputy Election Officer/A.D.M., Finance And Revenue & Anr. Vs. Punjab Tent
 House & Anr.
39
Commission,
an
application
for
impleadment was filed by the revisionists
which was rejected on 16.05.2014 against
which a revision was preferred by the
revisionists which was dismissed for want
of prosecution on 07.03.2024 in which the
recall application has been filed which is
still pending.

9. On the other hand, Sri Mohd. Arif
Khan,
learned
Senior
Advocate
has
submitted that there is no illegality in the
order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri
while rejecting the application preferred by
the revisionists under Section 47 of the
C.P.C.

10. It is further submitted that the
executing court cannot go beyond the
decree nor it questions its legality or
correctness
and
in
support
of
his
submission, he has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkas
reported
in
[AIR
1977
SUPREME
COURT 1201].

11. It is further submitted that the
execution proceedings is to be decided
within a period of six months from the date
of filing and in the present case, the
execution case has been filed in the year
2017 and in place of six months, more than
eight years have passed. In support of his
submission, he has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Periyammal (dead) By Lrs and
Others vs. V. Rajamani and Another
Etc. reported in [AIR 2025 SC (Civil)
1244].

12. It is further submitted that the
issues which have been raised by the
revisionists in the present civil revision has
already attained finality after the judgment
in the review petition filed by the
revisionists as the revisionists had taken
this point in the review petition as well.

13. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and going through the record
of the case, the position which emerges out
in the present case is that the order dated
24.11.2025 has been passed by giving
reasons in detail. In the impugned order,
the reason has also been assigned for non
inclusion of State Election Commission as
defendant or a necessary party and those
reasons are that the tender was invited by
the respondent no. 2 and after the
finalization, the agreement was executed
between
the
respondent
no.
1
and
revisionist no. 2 and there was no
agreement
with
the
State
Election
Commission. It has also been recorded that
at the time of filing of the written
statement, the said plea was not taken by
the revisionists, hence no issue was framed
on the said point and the issues were
framed accordingly. The executing court
has
also
given
the
details
of
the
proceedings initiated by the revisionists
against the final decree i.e. filing of First
Appeal after its dismissal, filing an SLP,
after the dismissal of SLP, filing a review
application before the High Court and after
the dismissal of the review, the revisionists
had moved the present application under
Section 47 of the C.P.C. before the
Execution court.

14. The objection of revisionists is that
the State Election Commission should have
been made a party and the application
moved for the purpose by the revisionists
has already been rejected. In no way it can
be argued that it relates to the jurisdiction
of the trial court much less inherent
jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. This
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission made by the revisionists is
devoid of any merit.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sundar Dass (supra) has already held
and it is followed till date wherein it has been
held that the Executing court cannot go behind
the decree nor can it question its legality or
correctness and the only exception is if the
decree sought to be executed is a nullity for
lack of inherent jurisdiction, which is not in
the present case for the reason it is not the case
of the revisionists that the decree is a nullity
for lack of inherent jurisdiction of the court
who has passed the same. The relevant
paragraph no. 3 of the judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:-

"3. Now, the law is well settled that
an executing court cannot go behind the
decree nor can it question its legality or
correctness. But there is one exception to this
general rule and that is that where the decree
sought to be executed is a nullity for lack of
inherent jurisdiction in the court passing it, its
invalidity can be set up in an execution
proceeding. Where there is lack of inherent
jurisdiction, it goes to the root of the
competence of the court to try the case and a
decree which is a nullity is void and can be
declared to be void by any court in which it is
presented. Its nullity can be set up whenever
and wherever it is sought to be enforced or
relied upon and even at the stage of execution
or even in collateral proceedings. The
executing court can, therefore, entertain an
objection that the decree is a nullity and can
refuse to execute the decree. By doing so, the
executing court would not incur the reproach
that it is going behind the decree, because the
decree being null and void, there would really
be no decree at all. Vide Kiran Singh v.
Chaman Paswan, (1955) 1 SCR 117 = (AIR
1954 SC 340) and Hiralal Patni v. Kali Nath,
(1962) 2 SCR 747 = (AIR 1962 SC 199) . It is,
therefore, obvious that in the present case, it
was competent to the executing court to
examine whether the decree for eviction was a
nullity on the ground that the civil court had
no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in
which the decree for eviction was passed. If
the decree for eviction was a nullity, the
executing court could declare it to be such and
decline to execute it against the respondent."

16. The decree has already attained
finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
now the Executing court has no other option
except to pass an order for the execution of the
decree and the application under Section 47 of
the C.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur
Kheri.

17. In view of the facts, circumstances
and discussion made hereinabove, the present
revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.

18. It is expected that the execution court
shall make endeavour to decide the execution
proceedings as per the direction of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal
(dead) By Lrs and Others (supra), wherein
it has been held that the execution proceedings
must be decided within a period of six months.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 40
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Jail Appeal No. 60 of 2020

Raj Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent