Judgment :- The decree holder in O.S.No.76/87 of the Puthur Civil Judge's Court, South Canara, a private limited company, is the revision petitioner. 2. Its application to execute the decree, it had obtained against defendants 1 to 4 stands dismissed by the order under challenge. According to the court below the decree was null and void as it was one passed without due notice to defendants 2 to 4. 3. I shall now read the relevant portion of the decree: "The suit coming on the 4th day of December, 1987 for final disposal before me in the presence of the advocates for the plaintiff named above and the defendants 2 to 5 having remained absent and were placed exparte and the first defendant also called out absent and placed exparte and after perusing the affidavit filed by the plaintiff this court doth hereby order and decreed as follows: It 4. The decree sought to be executed, going by the recitals therein, is an exparte decree as against defendants 2 to 4. This exparte decree, the learned counsel for the respondents submits, is null and void as it was passed without due notice to the defendants. Such a declaration can be given by the executing court, the counsel submits and in support of this contention he relied on the following decisions: L C.A. Govinda Pillai v. Kochukoshi Muthalali Luckose Muthalali (1955 K.L.T. 160). ii. Bhavan Vaja and others v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and another (A.I.R.1972 S.C.1371). iii. Paru Lakshmi v. Koma Bharathi & others (1968 K.L.T. 447). On the other hand the learned counsel for the decree-holder submits that only under certain circumstances the executing court can give such a declaration. Such circumstances, however do not exist here and therefore the order of the court below declaring that the decree is incapable of execution as it is void, is liable to be set aside. 5. The short question thus arising for consideration is, Has the executing court power to declare a decree null and void; and if that is possible, what are the circumstances under which such a declaration can be given. 6. Has the executing court the power to declare that a decree is null and void is no more a moot question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Kalinath ( A.I.R.1962 S.C.199). 6. Has the executing court the power to declare that a decree is null and void is no more a moot question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Kalinath ( A.I.R.1962 S.C.199). In the same strain is the decision of the Supreme Court in V.D. Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and others ( A.I.R.1970 S.C.1475). The real question therefore is what are the circumstances under which an executing court can declare a decree null and void. It should in this connection be remembered that an executing court while executing a decree cannot go behind the decree. It shall execute the decree as it stands. The executing court cannot also entertain the argument that the decree sought to be executed was incorrect in law or on facts. That means a decree even assuming that it is incorrect in law or on facts is executable until it is set aside, by a proper proceeding in appeal, revision or other proceedings provided for under the Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the circumstances that should be taken into account to declare a decree null and void, it is enough if I extract the following observations made by the Supreme Court in V.D. Modi's case. "When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. "When a decree which is a nullity, for instance, where it is passed without bringing the legal representatives on the record of a person who was dead at the date of the decree, or against a ruling prince without a certificate, is sought to be executed an objection in that behalf may be raised in a proceeding for execution. Again, 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 executing proceeding if the objection appears on the face of the record: where the objection as to the jurisdiction of the court to pass the decree does not appear on the face 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 on the ground of absence of jurisdiction where it is necessary to investigate facts in order to determine whether the court which had passed the decree had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, the objection cannot be raised in the execution proceeding". 7. It is in this backdrop the case of the respondents that inasmuch as there was no proper or due service of summons on them on the original side, it must be deemed that the decree affecting their rights is one passed without notice, and hence the same is null and void, requires to be considered. To find out whether there was proper and due notice it is necessary to investigate into disputed facts and without such an investigation it cannot be said whether the decree was passed with or without notice to them. Such an investigation, going by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in V.D. Modi's case is not permissible in an execution proceeding. It should in this connection be remembered that in cases where it is established that summons in terms of clause (2) of Rule 19A had been issued to the defendant from the court but not returned, it can be presumed that notice has duly been served on him in view of the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 19A of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure. To rebut the presumption an investigation into disputed facts require to be made. Such an investigation cannot be had in an execution proceeding. 8. Assuming that a decree is void due to lack of inherent jurisdiction or on account of the fact that it is one passed against a dead person etc., then, are we to understand that such a decree does not bring any legal consequence at all. To my mind it does, unless it be, that it is set aside by the appellate court or by the court which passed it by allowing the petition under Order 9 Rule 13, or the executing court, accepting the case of the judgment debtor that it was made by a court which has no inherent jurisdiction to make it and which case is apparent on the face of the record, declares it a nullity. If that be so, there is no meaning in stating that a decree is void meaning thereby, it does not exist in the eye of law. Such a decree also will be valid and hence capable of execution until it is invalidated by a legal action. (See the decision of this court in Ponkunnam Trades Hills Produce v. Income-tax Officer, 1971 K.L.T. 646). 9. Brown on jurisdiction has opined that "a distinction is to be made between a case where there is no service (of summons) whatever and one which is simply descriptive or irregular". In the former case the court does not acquire jurisdiction and if that be so the judgment would be void. In the latter if the court to which the process is returnable adjudges the service to be sufficient, and thereupon renders judgment, such judgment is not void, but only subject to be set aside by the court which gave it, upon reasonable and proper application or reversed upon appeal. An investigation into these matters, as already noted, is not permissible in execution proceedings. (Seethe decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra). The Division Bench in C.A Govinda Pillai's case had had no occasion to consider the question as to whether such an investigation is permissible presumably because such a case was not presented before the Division Bench. The said decision therefore shall confine to the facts of the said case. (Seethe decisions of the Supreme Court cited supra). The Division Bench in C.A Govinda Pillai's case had had no occasion to consider the question as to whether such an investigation is permissible presumably because such a case was not presented before the Division Bench. The said decision therefore shall confine to the facts of the said case. Whatever that be, in view of the later Supreme Court rulings, the principle, which, according to the counsel for the judgment debtor concludes the issue in this case in his favour, to my mind, has no application here. Similarly the Supreme Court ruling in Bhavan Vaja (AIR 1972 S.C.1371) has no application here. There the Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether the executing court has the duty to find out the true effect of a decree. The Supreme Court while considering the question has observed that "for construing a decree it can and in appropriate cases it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the decree. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree, the court often has to ascertain the circumstances under which these words came to be used. That is the plain duty of the executing court and if that court fails to discharge that duty, it would be deemed to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it". Similarly the principles stated in Paru Lakshmi's case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. The order under challenge therefore is set aside. The court below accordingly is directed to take the E.P. on to its file and dispose of the same in accordance with law.