Collateral challenge to a revisional order fails where direct appellate remedies existed and no breach of undertaking was proved.

A revisional order capable of direct challenge was held not to be a nullity merely because jurisdiction was questioned later in collateral execution proceedings; a plea of jurisdictional defect first raised under writ jurisdiction could not be entertained, especially where special leave petitions had already been pursued against that order. On the alleged breach of an undertaking to provide alternative accommodation until reconstruction, the Court accepted concurrent findings that no vacant shop-room or comparable space was available with the landlord or his son for allotment to the tenants, and found no illegality or impropriety in those findings. The execution orders were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prior revisional order could be treated as a nullity for want of jurisdiction and ignored in collateral execution proceedings; (ii) Whether the landlord failed to comply with the undertaking said to have been made before the Supreme Court requiring provision of alternative accommodation until reconstruction.

Issue (i): Whether the prior revisional order could be treated as a nullity for want of jurisdiction and ignored in collateral execution proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge to the revisional order was raised for the first time in execution and was sought to be pursued under writ jurisdiction. The Court held that an order passed by a competent court, even if alleged to be erroneous for want of jurisdiction, is not to be treated as non-existent in collateral proceedings when it was capable of being directly challenged by appeal. The petitioners had themselves pursued special leave petitions against the revisional order, which reinforced that the order could not be treated as a nullity. A plea of jurisdictional defect not raised earlier could not be entertained in collateral proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not a nullity and could not be ignored in the present proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord failed to comply with the undertaking said to have been made before the Supreme Court requiring provision of alternative accommodation until reconstruction.

Analysis: The Court accepted the concurrent factual findings that there was no material to show that the landlord or his son was in possession of any vacant shop-room available for allotment to the tenants. The execution court and the revisional court had examined the evidence and concluded that the landlord was not in possession of vacant space capable of being offered as alternative accommodation. Those findings were not shown to suffer from illegality, irregularity, or impropriety.

Conclusion: No breach of the alleged undertaking was established.

Final Conclusion: The original petition failed on both the jurisdictional challenge and the alleged non-compliance with the undertaking, and the impugned execution orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order capable of direct appellate challenge cannot be treated as a nullity in collateral proceedings merely because jurisdiction is questioned later, and concurrent findings of fact on compliance with an undertaking will not be disturbed absent legal infirmity.

---