Executing court cannot go behind a decree unless it is void for inherent lack of jurisdiction; belated limitation objections fail.

A decree allegedly passed on an award could not be treated as a nullity merely because limitation was later disputed, since the objection involved a mixed question of law and fact that should have been raised before the decree became final. An executing court cannot go behind a decree or re-examine its correctness on law or facts; it may disregard only a decree that is void for an inherent lack of jurisdiction apparent on the record. Belated objections raised at the execution stage were therefore impermissible, and the Supreme Court restored the decree-holder's execution and set aside the High Court's remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the award decree dated 02.06.1989 was a nullity being barred by limitation; (ii) whether the executing court can go behind such a decree; and (iii) whether any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was called for.

Issue (i): Whether the award decree dated 02.06.1989 was a nullity being barred by limitation.

Analysis: The award had been filed in court and notice had been served, but no objections were filed under the arbitration law before the decree was made. The alleged bar of limitation depended on whether the award was filed suo motu by the arbitrator or at the instance of a party, which was a mixed question of law and fact. Such a contention could have been raised before the decree became final, but not later in collateral execution proceedings.

Conclusion: The decree was not a nullity on the ground of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the executing court can go behind such a decree.

Analysis: An executing court is bound by the decree and cannot re-examine its correctness in law or on facts. It may ignore only a decree that is a nullity for inherent lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record. Here, the decree was not shown to suffer from such inherent want of jurisdiction, and the objection raised was one that should have been pursued in the original proceedings.

Conclusion: The executing court could not go behind the decree.

Issue (iii): Whether any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India was called for.

Analysis: The record showed that the respondent had knowledge of the award and the instalment structure, had accepted benefits under the transaction, and raised belated objections only at the execution stage. No fraud or equity justified refusal of relief, and the remand order was inconsistent with the settled limits on execution jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference was warranted under Article 136.

Final Conclusion: The remand order of the High Court was set aside and the decree-holder's execution based on the award decree was restored to its legal footing.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree, even if allegedly erroneous or passed on an issue of limitation, cannot be impeached in execution unless it is a nullity for inherent lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record; a mixed question of law and fact must be raised in the original proceedings and not collaterally in execution.

---