JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a judgment debtor's second appeal against order dated 17-4-74 passed by Ld. Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dismissed his appeal No. 138 of 1971 district Banda against order dated 3-12-71 passed by A.C. Ist Class Karwi district Banda dismissing objection of the appellant under Section 74 of the C.P.C. in execution proceeding taken out by Kalloo and Smt. Tunia, respondent. 2. Bhagwathi, had filed suit for ejectment of the appellant from the land in suit which was decreed by the trial court on 30-9-61, against which appeal was filed by the present appellants which was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 20-4-63. They went in second appeal to the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed on 21-5-70 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 3. Bhagirathi died pending lite who was substituted by the present respondents. 4. First execution application was moved on 13-5-63 and after dismissal of the second appeal by the Hon'ble High Court respondents gave second application on 15-5-71 against which objection was filed on 3-12-71 after Dakhal was given on that date. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It was argued that after U.P. Act 37 of 1958 the first appeal and second appeal were not maintainable in Civil Court and their decisions being without jurisdiction, doctrine of merge of those judgments with the judgment of the trial court is not applicable and the application dated 15-5-71 being after 10 years as time barred and therefore the execution was not maintainable and this point can be raised even in execution proceedings. Reliance has been placed on 1954 A.L.J page 551 (S.C.), 1973 A.W.R. (H.C.) page 106 F.B. 7. In reply it was argued that first application was moved on 13-5-63 and the second application dated 15-5-71 was in continuation of the first application as between this period of execution was stayed by the higher courts and the doctrine or merge is applicable and the savings section 67 of Act 37 of 1958 was applicable and the first appeal and second appeal both were filed by the present judgment debtors-appellants-defendants. Therefore they are estopped to plead that the first and second appeals were without jurisdiction and section 15 of Indian Limitation Act shall be applicable. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1927 Alld. Therefore they are estopped to plead that the first and second appeals were without jurisdiction and section 15 of Indian Limitation Act shall be applicable. Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1927 Alld. (F.B.) page 16 followed in 1973 A.I.R Bombay page 148 and 1968 A.I.R. (S.C.) page 1286. 8. The cardinal principle laid down in 1954 A.L.J page 551 Supreme Court is as follows:- It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings". Cannot be disputed, and as held in 1973 Supreme Court Decisions page 793 runs as follows: "It is true that a contention with regard to the jurisdiction had not been raised by the defendant in the Trial Court but where the Court is inherently lacking in jurisdiction the plea may be raised at any stage, and even in execution proceedings on the ground that the decree was a nullity". These cardinal principle lay down that where there was inherent lack of jurisdiction point of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage including the execution proceedings. 9. But the lack of inherent jurisdiction must be on the fact of the record which may not require any investigation. It has been held so in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. page 1475 which runs as follows:- "When the decree is made by a Court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it, objection as to its validity may be raised in an execution proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record. But where the objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to pass the decree does not appear on the fact of the record and requires examination of the questions raised and decided at the trial or which could have been but have not been raised, the executing Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree even no the ground of absence of jurisdiction". In the present case the appellant filed a first appeal and the second appeal. They took a change to get the judgment in their favour. In the present case the appellant filed a first appeal and the second appeal. They took a change to get the judgment in their favour. Now they cannot take exception to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Hon'ble Court as held in 1968 S.C. page 1286. 10. The point of jurisdiction after amendment by Act 38 of 1958 was taken before the Hon'ble High Court and it was negatived, therefore, as held in A.I.R. 1969 Orissa page 21 which runs as follows:- "If the Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction the decree would be a nullity and can be questioned at the stage of execution. In such a case, the Executing Court can go behind the decree. But the position is difference where the question of lack of inherent jurisdiction was specifically raised and negatived. The matter cannot be further allowed to be agitated. It must be treated inter parties that the Court passing the decree had inherent jurisdiction". 11 It had been held in A.I.R. 1969 Madhya Pradesh page 35 as follows: "Where the Court has power to decided the question of jurisdiction arising from the interpretation or the applicability of a statute, even an erroneous decision is binding on the parties." 12. And it had been held in A.I.R. 1971 Goa page 37 as follows: "When the decree was passed after deciding the question of jurisdiction and that decision has become final the parties cannot become final the parties cannot contend in execution proceedings that the decree was passed by an incompetent court". 13. It has been held in 1971 R.D. page 12 (H.C.) as follows:- "Section 87 (1) of the Amendment Act provides that a court or authority before whom a proceeding has been instituted or commenced prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act (which is November 7, 1958) continues to have jurisdiction to hear and decide that proceedings". 14. In the present case before the amendment in question cause into force the issue referred to the Civil Court was decided by the Civil Court, therefore, the first appeal and second appeal was maintainable in the Civil Court and Hon'ble High Court respectively. In view of the above pronouncements therefore, the First appeal was rightly decided by the learned Addl. Commissioner and this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with costs.