Jurisdictional defect and reasoned adjudication are essential before a decree can be enforced in execution proceedings.

Order VIII Rule 10 is permissive and does not compel judgment merely because a written statement is not filed. Where maintainability or jurisdiction is questioned, the court must first satisfy itself, at least prima facie, that it is competent to try the suit before granting relief. A decree may be challenged in execution only if the jurisdictional defect is inherent and patent on the face of the record; a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction is insufficient. A reasoned adjudication determining the rights in controversy is required for a valid judgment and decree under the Code.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order and decree passed against one defendant for failure to file a written statement, without first deciding the court's competence to entertain the suit, were a nullity and therefore incapable of execution under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is permissive and does not compel a court to pronounce judgment merely because a written statement has not been filed. Where maintainability or jurisdiction is in issue, the court must first satisfy itself, at least prima facie, that it is competent to try the suit before proceeding to grant relief. A decree can be questioned in execution only if the lack of jurisdiction is inherent and patent on the face of the record; a mere error in exercise of jurisdiction does not make the decree inexecutable. Here, the trial court decreed the suit against one defendant without recording any adjudication on its own competence, though another defendant's written statement had already raised objections to maintainability. The order also lacked the reasoning required of a judgment under the Code and did not contain an adjudication determining the rights in controversy so as to amount to a decree.

Conclusion: The order dated 5th August, 1991 was ab initio void, the decree drawn on its basis was inexecutable, and the objection under section 47 was maintainable. The challenge to the High Court's decision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree passed without first determining the court's jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, and without a reasoned adjudication satisfying the requirements of a judgment and decree under the Code, is a nullity and may be treated as inexecutable in execution proceedings.

---