NAVADGI, J. ( 1 ) IN this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the code for short), the Judgment and Decree dated 15-12-1984 passed by the Additional civil Judge, Chikodi, in R. A. No. 80/84 on his file, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13-7-1984 passed by the Additional munsiff, Chikodi, in O. S. No. 256/78 is challenged. The prayer is to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15-12-1984 in ra. No. 80/84, confirming the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 256/78 and to dismiss the suit. ( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is before us on a Reference made under Section 8 of the karnataka High Court Act, by a Single judge. ( 3 ) THE question involved in the matter is : whether the decree passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, in R. A. No. 80/84, confirming the decree in O. S. No. 256/78 passed by the Additional Munsiff, chikodi, in contravention of Section 9 of the karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the small Cause courts Act) as amended from time to time, is a nullity? ( 4 ) THE facts of the matter are these : shankar Mahadev Umarane - the respondent herein, filed the suit on 11-9-1978 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2405/- with interest and costs from shivamurthi Mallayya swami - the petitioner herein. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent in this Revision Petition would be referred to as the defendant and the plaintiff respectively, as shown in the cause title of the original proceedings. The plaintiff averred in the suit that the defendant had taken a sum of Rs. 1850/- on 5-3-1976, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The defendant agreed to repay the amount on demand made by the plaintiff. The defendant executed a Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff on 5-3-1976. The defendant did not pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. Calculating the 'interest at the rate' pleaded on the principal sum from the date of the loan to the date of the suit at Rs. 555/-, the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2405/- as stated earlier. ( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the suit. Calculating the 'interest at the rate' pleaded on the principal sum from the date of the loan to the date of the suit at Rs. 555/-, the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2405/- as stated earlier. ( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the suit. He traversed the plaint averments and contended that he had not taken the loan; that he had not executed the Promissory Note; and that he had not agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. He also contended that the plaintiff was carrying on money lending business without a licence and that, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. According to him, the plaintiff was I in the habit of getting some letters or receipts written by other people on blank papers and was in the habit of threatening the people, whose signatures he used to so obtain with recovery of the dues. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the additional Munsiff formulated the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable without producing licence as required under money Lenders Act? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed Rs. 1850/- and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 15% p. a. ? (3) To what reliefs the parties are entitled to? ( 7 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as p. W-1 and adduced the evidence of P. W-2, the witness to Ex. P-1, the Promissory Note. Four documents were admitted in evidence for him. The defendant entered the witnessbox and gave evidence as D. W-1 and relied upon four documents, marked as exs. D-1 to D-4. ( 8 ) THE Additional Munsiff, on consideration of the evidence, held that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiff had proved that the defendant borrowed rs. 1850/- and executed a Demand promissory Note, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 15 per cent per annum. He recorded his findings accordingly on Issues nos. 1 and 2 and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in part. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2405/- with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum from the date of the suit till realisation on the decretal amount. He recorded his findings accordingly on Issues nos. 1 and 2 and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in part. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2405/- with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent annum from the date of the suit till realisation on the decretal amount. He granted time till 13th October, 1984 to the defendant to satisfy the decretal amount. He, thus, decreed the suit in part with no order as to costs. ( 9 ) THE defendant dissatisfied with the decree, filed an appeal in R. A. No. 80/84 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chikodi, on 24-8-1984. The plaintiff dissatisfied with that part of the decree which directed the parties to bear their respective costs in the suit, preferred cross-objections. The learned additional Civil Judge, by the Judgment dated 15-12-1984, dismissed the appeal, as well the cross-objections. He confirmed the judgment and Decree under appeal. ( 10 ) THE High Court by the Notification dated 4th September, 1980, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (the Civil Courts Act for short) and in supersession of all the Notifications issued in that behalf, invested with effect from 15-9-1980 the Court of the Civil Judge, chikodi, with the jurisdiction of the Court of small Causes within the limits of Chikodi taluk for the trial of suits cognizable by the court of Small Causes upto and not exceeding the value of Rs. 3,000/- only. ( 11 ) THERE was no Court of Small Causes at Chikodi with its local limits defined at the date on which O. S. No. 256/78 - obviously a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, was filed. The ordinary Civil Court, namely, the Court of the Munsiff, Chikodi, was the court having competence to receive the suit and to dispose it of on merits. The jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff, chikodi to try and dispose of the suits of civil nature of which the value did not exceed rs. 3,000/- vested in it under law, continued to exist till 15-9-1980. ( 12 ) IT was only on 15-9-1980, the Court of the Munsiff at Chikodi was divested of the jurisdiction to try the suits of a civil nature, the value of which did not exceed Rs. 3,000/- vested in it under law, continued to exist till 15-9-1980. ( 12 ) IT was only on 15-9-1980, the Court of the Munsiff at Chikodi was divested of the jurisdiction to try the suits of a civil nature, the value of which did not exceed Rs. 3,000/- cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, when the High Court, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Civil Courts Act, invested the Court of civil Judge, Chikodi, with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes within the limits of chikodi Taluk for the trial of suits cognizable by the Court of Small Causes. 1. It is evident from the record and there is no dispute that the Court of the Munsiff disposed of the suit by the decree dated 13-7-1984 and the appeal filed on 24-8-1984, confirming the decree, was disposed of on 15-12-1984. This is a case where a suit of small cause nature was tried as a regular suit in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Small Cause Courts Act. ( 13 ) IT is also evident from the record that the defendant never challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff, chikodi, after 15-9-1980 on the ground that the Court of the Munsiff, Chikodi had ceased to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the suit (cognizable by the Court of Small Causes) with effect from 15-9-1980, the date on which the court of the Civil Judge, Chikodi was invested with the power of a Court of Small causes. It appears, the question of jurisdiction was not raised even in the appeal and the cross-objections. ( 14 ) THE provision in the Small Cause courts Act that calls for interpretation, to decide the question is Section 9. Section 9 reads as follows:"9. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of small Causes - Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. " ( 15 ) THE section in terms says that (i) a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes; (ii) shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable; and (iii) save as expressly provided by the Small Cause courts Act or by any other law for the time being in force. ( 16 ) THERE have been attempts to define the word 'jurisdiction'. The expression is defined in Black's Law Dictionary with pronunciation, Fifth Edition, Page-766, as under:"jurisdiction The word is a term of large and comprehensive import, and embraces every kind of judicial action. Federal Land Bank of Louisville, Ky. , v crombie, 258 Ky. 383, 80 S. W. 2d 39, 40. It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. Board of Trustees of firemen's Relief and Pension Fund of city of Marietta v Brooks, 179 Okl. 600, 67 p. 2d 4, 6; State v True, Me. , 330 A. 2d 787. The legal right by which judges exercise their authority. Max Ams, Inc. v Barker, 293 Ky. 698, 170 S. W. 2d 45, 48. It exists when court has cognizance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within powers of court. United Cemeteries Co. v strother, 342 MO. 1155, 119 S. W. 2d 762, 765; Harder v Johnson, 147 Kan. 440, 76 p. 2d 763, 764. Power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding. In re De Camillis' Estate, 66 misc. 2d 882, 322 N. Y. S 2d 551, 556. The right and power of a court to adjudicate concerning the subject matter in a given case. Biddinger v Fletcher, 224 Ga. 501, 162 S. E. 2d 414, 416. " ( 17 ) IN AMRITRAV KRISHNA deshpande v BALKRISHNA GANESH amrapurkar, (1887) ILR 11 Bom 488, west, J. , said that jurisdiction consists in taking cognizance of a case involving the determination of some jural relation, in ascertaining the essential points of it, and in pronouncing upon them. ( 18 ) THE expression 'jurisdiction', according to the judicial consensus, is the power of a Court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power in relation to it (the cause ). ( 18 ) THE expression 'jurisdiction', according to the judicial consensus, is the power of a Court to hear and determine a cause, to adjudicate or exercise any judicial power in relation to it (the cause ). Jurisdiction is the authority, by which Court has to decide causes brought before it or to take cognizance of causes presented for its decision. ( 19 ) THE jurisdiction of the Courts is sought to be restricted in a variety of ways. The restrictions may be with reference to the place of suing, with reference to the pecuniary valuation of the suits and with reference to the subject-matter. These categories are called as territorial jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction according to the subject-matter of the suit. ( 20 ) THE Small Cause Courts Act is a special enactment enacted to provide for a uniform law relating to Courts of Small causes in the State of Karnataka. A reading of the provisions contained in Small Cause courts Act would make it clear that it is a special enactment providing a speedy and inexpensive means of settling small causes. It provides, among other things, for the establishment of Courts of Small Causes, their jurisdiction and the practice and procedure to be followed. It provides for a summary procedure for the trial of small causes and takes away the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court which otherwise had jurisdiction to try them unless otherwise provided in it (in the Small Cause Courts act) or any other law for the time being in force. ( 21 ) THE Court of Small Causes at any place with its local limits defined, may be established by the State Government in consultation with the High Court. Even where a Court of Small Causes as such is not established under Section 22 of the Civil courts Act, the High Court may, by notification, invest within such limits as it shall from time to time determine, any Court of a Civil Judge or a Munsiff Court with jurisdiction for the trial of suits cognizable by a Court of Small Causes upto such amount as it may deem proper not exceeding in the case of a Court of Civil Judge, Rs. 3,000/- and in the case of a Munsiff Court, Rs. 500/ -. 3,000/- and in the case of a Munsiff Court, Rs. 500/ -. ( 22 ) SECTION 26 of the Small Cause Courts act provides for the application of the Act and Code to Courts so invested as to two courts. Section 26 reads :"26. Application of Act and Code to courts so invested as to two Courts-A court invested with the jurisdiction of a court of Small Causes with respect to the exercise of that jurisdiction, and the same court with respect to the exercise of its jurisdiction, in suits of a civil nature which are not cognizable by a court of Small causes, shall, for the purposes of this Act, and the Code, be deemed to be different courts. " ( 23 ) IT is, thus, clear that the Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of small Causes would be a Small Cause Court, with respect to the exercise of that jurisdiction, and the same Court with respect to the exercise of its jurisdiction, in suits of a civil nature which are not cognizable by a court of Small Causes, for the purposes of the Small Cause Courts Act and the Code, would be deemed to be different Courts. ( 24 ) IN our opinion, a careful reading of the requirements of Section 9 stated above, would show that Section 9 clearly enacts that if a suit is cognizable by a Court of Small causes, and if there exists such a Court of small Causes having jurisdiction to try it, then the suit shall not be tried by any other court. The section expressly takes away the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Court to try a suit of a small cause nature as a regular suit or long cause, provided a Court of Small causes having jurisdiction to try it, exists for that place. ( 25 ) THE expression "exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes" in Section 9, in our opinion, is an indication that the word 'shall' used in Section 9 imports a command, imperative in nature. ( 26 ) THE legal position beyond controversy is, when the jurisdiction of a Court is excluded in respect of the specified subject-matter by a provision in an enactment, the Court loses the jurisdiction to try such matter. Such a provision, in our opinion, would be necessarily imperative. ( 26 ) THE legal position beyond controversy is, when the jurisdiction of a Court is excluded in respect of the specified subject-matter by a provision in an enactment, the Court loses the jurisdiction to try such matter. Such a provision, in our opinion, would be necessarily imperative. The plain, clear and unambiguous language employed in Section 9 does not admit of any meaning other than this that no Court other than the Court of Small Causes can try a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. ( 27 ) IN KIRAN SINGH v CHAMAN paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 , the Supreme court has laid down :"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. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether, it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. " ( 28 ) INDEED, it is true, in the case on hand, the parties did not raise any objection with regard to want of jurisdiction even after 15-9-1980 and took the decision from the court of the Munsiff on 13-7-1984. They took decision from the Court of the Civil Judge in the appeal on 15-12-1984. But that will not go in aid of the plaintiff. It is by now well settled that where jurisdiction of a Court has been excluded in respect of a specified subject-matter, no amount of acquiescence, waiver, consent, ignorance of law, bona fides, good faith or any other consideration can confer such jurisdiction on such Court. ( 29 ) IN 9 Halsbury (Simonds) 452, it is stated:"where, by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter, or commission, a Court is without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiescence nor the express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the Court. ( 29 ) IN 9 Halsbury (Simonds) 452, it is stated:"where, by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter, or commission, a Court is without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiescence nor the express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the Court. " ( 30 ) IT is, therefore, clear that the fact that the defendant did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff would not ensure for the benefit of the plaintiff to contend that the decree is not a nullity. Consent of parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court and an objection to jurisdiction can be raised at any stage in the proceedings. It is a well established rule of law that a nullity remains a nullity and can be so declared at any stage. ( 31 ) THE decree assailed in the instant case, in our opinion, suffers from the inherent lack of jurisdiction. In our opinion, there is no scope for holding that there has been irregularity or defect of procedure. Any irregularity or defect in procedure is one which happens in the course of a trial while observing and following certain procedure by a court which has the jurisdiction to try it. ( 32 ) SECTION 21 of the Code is restricted in its application to territorial jurisdiction and not to the competence of the court to try a suit. In HIRALAL v KALINATH, AIR 1962 sc 199 , the Supreme Court has laid down that the objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a Court to try a case; that the later objection goes to the very root of the jurisdiction' and where it is lacking, it would be a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme court has further laid down that an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court can be waived and this principle has been given a statutory recognition (Sic, ). . . . . . . . S. 21 of the code. The plaintiff also cannot draw any assistance either from the provisions contained in Section 102 or Section 15 of the code. . . . . . . . S. 21 of the code. The plaintiff also cannot draw any assistance either from the provisions contained in Section 102 or Section 15 of the code. ( 33 ) ON facts, it is clear that when the suit was tried and disposed of, there was no jurisdiction in the Court of the Munsiff to try it. Having regard to the imperative command in Section 9 of the Small Cause Courts Act, the decree, in our opinion, has to be held as a nullity. ( 34 ) WE, therefore, hold that the Court of munsiff had no jurisdiction to try the suit and its Judgment and Decree as affirmed in the appeal is a nullity and no amount of consideration can make it valid or effective. The Lower Appellate Court, without examining this fundamental defect in the decree appealed against, has confirmed the decree by dismissing the appeal. The decree of the Trial Court, which has merged with the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, which suffers from a fundamental defect rendering it a nullity, would also make the decree of the Lower Appellate Court a nullity. ( 35 ) THE next point for consideration is: what would be the just and proper order that requires to be made with regard to the suit. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Section 115 of the Code. The provisions contained in Order 46 Rule 7 of the Code are obviously not attracted. The suit was instituted on 11-9-1978 when the court of the Munsiff had jurisdiction to entertain and try it. Its jurisdiction was taken away with effect from 15-9-1980 when the high Court, in exercise of the powers vested in it under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Civil Courts Act, invested the Court of the Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of a court of Small Causes within the limits of chikodi Taluk to try suits upto and not exceeding the value of Rs. 3,000/ -. The decree came to be passed in direct disobedience of the mandate of law contained in Section 9 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The Lower appellate Court did not notice this disobedience in the matter of passing of the decree. It confirmed the decree having concurred with the findings of the Trial court on the various issues settled in the suit. The Lower appellate Court did not notice this disobedience in the matter of passing of the decree. It confirmed the decree having concurred with the findings of the Trial court on the various issues settled in the suit. ( 36 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, it appears, the just and expedient order that commends to us would be the transfer of the suit to the Court of the Civil Judge, Chikodi, invested with the jurisdiction of the Court of small Causes, with a direction to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Since at the date of the institution of the suit, the Court of the Munsiff had jurisdiction to try the suit, we feel that to direct the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court would be inexpedient. ( 37 ) IN the result, for the reasons aforesaid, we proceed to pass the following order : the Civil Revision Petition is entitled to succeed. It is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The Judgment and decree dated 15-12-1984 made in R. A. No. 80/84 on the file of the Court of the addl. Civil Judge, Chikodi, confirming the judgment and Decree dated 13-7-1984 made in O. S. No. 256/78 on the file of the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Chikodi, is hereby set aside. O. S. No. 256/78 is sent to the Court of the Civil Judge, Chikodi (invested with the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes within the limits of Chikodi Taluk) for trial and disposal, with a direction to dispose it of in accordance with law. --- *** --- .