JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 151, CPC, has been so ought to be invoked by the petitioner/judgment debtor by challenging the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in Misc. (J) Case No. 45 of 2002 arising out of T. Ex. Case No. 5 of 1996. 2. I have heard Mr. C.K. Sarma Baruah, learned senior Advocate for the petitioner/ judgment debtor and Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Away back on 19.7.94, the decree-holders/respondents instituted the suit against the petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant in the Court of the then Additional District Judge, Tinsukia, which was registered as T.S. No. 43 of 1994. In the said suit the decree-holder/ plaintiffs prayed for as follows: (1) Declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring IB 0K 0L (Bari land) under Dag No. 494, 123, 493, 927 and 505 of A.P. No. 1, 2 and 110, situated at No. 2 Asomiya Gaon, under Tingrai Mouza, and the house standing thereon (described in the schedule A). (2) Declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 3B 0K 0L comprised under Dag No. 494, 423, 493, 927, 505 of A.P. No. 1, 2 and 110 situated at No. 2 Asomiya Gaon, under Tingrai Mouza, (morefully described in Schedule B). (3) Recovery of Khas possession of the land measuring 1B 0K) 1 under part of Dag No. 494, 423, 493, 927, 505 of A.P. No. 110, land 2 and the house standing thereon (described in the schedule A). (4) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land as described in the Schedule-B and taking forceful possession thereof and prevent them from disturbing the plaintiffs cultivating and peaceful possession thereof. (5) Cost of the suit, and any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. 4. The petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement but later on refrained from participating in the suit proceeding. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex parte and finally on 30.6.95, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant. An application under Order 30, Rule 9, CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 45/2002 though filed by the defendant was rejected vide order dated 19.2.97. Subsequently, the Misc. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex parte and finally on 30.6.95, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant. An application under Order 30, Rule 9, CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 45/2002 though filed by the defendant was rejected vide order dated 19.2.97. Subsequently, the Misc. Appeal No. 1/97 filed but the same also met the same fate vide order dated 1.6.2000 passed by the learned appellate Court. The said order was again challenged in Civil Revision No. 228/2000 before this Court, which was also dismissed by this Court. The petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant thereafter having lost all the forums instituted a separate suit being T.S. No. 52/2000 praying for declaration that the ex parte decree passed in T.S. No. 43/94 was fraudulently obtained and that the said decree is a nullity and not liable to be executed. The said suit was also dismissed vide order dated 19.1.2000 under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(b), CPC. The process of execution, which was stalled so far, was restarted. The petitioner/judgment debtor/ defendant filed another application under Section 47, CPC, objecting execution. Apart from narrating the litigate facts in the said application, the petitioner has also raised a plea that the decreetal land being covered under annual patta and the claim of the respondents/ plaintiffs is that they purchased the same and such transfer of annual patta land is not permissible. That apart, another plea was taken in the said objection that in the meantime the revenue authority has cancelled the annual patta Nos. 1,2 and 110 in terms of the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (revenue), Tinsukia, on 10.1.96 and accordingly, the land under annual patta Nos. 1,2 and 110 which was subsequently renumbered as annual patta No. 190 has become Sarkari and vested with the Government and in that view of the matter, the decree passed and obtained by the decree-holder is a nullity and not executable. The decree-holder/respondents filed objection. On the prayer of the petitioner/judgment debtor, the learned executing Court called for the records of the related NR Case No. 6/94 as well as summons were also directed to be issued to the Circle Officer, Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Saristadar to depose in the case. The decree-holder/respondents filed objection. On the prayer of the petitioner/judgment debtor, the learned executing Court called for the records of the related NR Case No. 6/94 as well as summons were also directed to be issued to the Circle Officer, Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Saristadar to depose in the case. The Circle Officer vide letter dated 5.8.2004 intimated that the connected original records of the NR Case which was sent to the office of the Deputy Commissioner is not found and accordingly, forwarded a copy of the Chitha corrected in his office. The application of the petitioner/judgment debtor having put up before the Court on 29.3.2007, the learned Executing Court heard both the parties and rejected the plea of the petitioner/ judgment debtor and dismissed the application with costs, which is the subject matter of this revision petition. 5. In support of the contentions of the petitioner/judgment debtor, Mr. Sharma Baruah submits that although an executing Court cannot travel behind the decree, in the instant case, the decreetal land on which the interest of the decree-holder has been declared has been made Government land by canceling the annual Patta and accordingly, the decree-holders have lost their rights to execute the decree and the decree has become inexecutable. The learned executing Court having failed to consider this basic aspect has committed jurisdictional error. In support of his contention, Mr. Sharma refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder Dass vs. Ramprakash, (1977) 3 SCR 60 and Smt. Radhi Dei and other vs. Lalit Mohan Mohanty, AIR 1991 Ori 36 . 6. Mr. G P. Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the decree-holders, on the other hand, submits that the view taken by the learned trial Court the learned executing Court has also considered the fact of cancellation of the annual patta and on such consideration having passed the impugned order the same is not liable to be interfered with in this revision petition. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties with proper perspective. A Court is required to travel on the entire papers and the documents including the impugned order. A brief narration of litigate history of the dispute between the parties till date as disclose above shows that the decree passed on 30.6.95 in T.S. No. 43/94 has attained its finality. A Court is required to travel on the entire papers and the documents including the impugned order. A brief narration of litigate history of the dispute between the parties till date as disclose above shows that the decree passed on 30.6.95 in T.S. No. 43/94 has attained its finality. Although the decree-holders made another attempt to salvage the situation faced by him he filed T.S. No. 52/2000, the same has also attained the finality on its dismissal on 19.1.2000. While the process of execution started after disposal of different legal proceedings, at that stage, the present application under Section 47, CPC, was filed wherein the inexecutability of the decree as stated above has been raised. Title Suit No. 43/94 was decreed declaring the right, title and interest and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land with further decreeing the possession of 1 B of land which is covered by the suit land from the petitioner/judgment debtor. In the aforesaid suit the State instrumentalities are not the parties, the claim of the plaintiff in the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest in respect of the suit land against the present petitioner/judgment debtor, the decree-holders have not claimed any right, title and interest against the State respondents. The executable part of the decree is relating to recovery of possession of 1 B of land which is part of the suit land from the petitioner/judgment debtor. By the aforesaid decree, the learned Court below settled the rights between the decree-holders and the petitioner/judgment debtor. Regarding the declaratory part of the decree, there is not question of any specific procedure in the adopted by issuing the process of execution by the Court. It is one of the principles of law that even in case of Government land there can be a suit between two contesting parties claiming rival interest. That apart, cancellation of the annual patta, as alleged, was made on 10.1.96, i.e., after passing of the decree. From 10.1.96, the petitioner/judgment debtor has initiated a number of litigation by way of appeal, revision and even by filing Title Suit and all these cases have been dismissed. The plea which has been taken by the petitioner/judgment debtor as indicated above was also available to him at the time of filing Misc. (J) Appeal No. 1/97, Civil Revision No. 228/2000 and at the time filing T.S. No. 52/2000. The plea which has been taken by the petitioner/judgment debtor as indicated above was also available to him at the time of filing Misc. (J) Appeal No. 1/97, Civil Revision No. 228/2000 and at the time filing T.S. No. 52/2000. Since the petitioner/ judgment debtor has not furnished copies of those pleadings filed in the aforesaid litigations, this Court is not in a position to look into such pleas regarding inexecutability on the ground that the land being sarkari after cancellation of the annual patta have been taken or not. But the fact remains that such plea was available for the petitioner/judgment debtor at that time. 8. There is no dispute regarding proposition of law that in an appropriate case, the executing Court can go beyond the decree as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder Dass (supra) as referred to by Mr. Sharma. The relevant para-3 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: Now the law is well settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness. But there is one exception to this general rule and that is that where the decree sought to be executed is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Court passing it, its invalidity can be set up in an execution proceeding. Where there is lack of inherent jurisdiction, it goes to the root of the competence of the Court to try the case and a decree which is a nullity is void and can be declared to be void by any court in which it is presented. Its nullity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon and even at the stage of execution or even in collateral proceedings. The executing court can therefore, entertain an objection the decree. By doing so, the executing court would not incur the reproach that it is going behind the decree, because the decree being null and void, there would really be no decree at all. Vide Karan Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, (1955) 1 SCR 117 and Hiralal Patni vs. Kali Nath (1962) 2 SCR 747. By doing so, the executing court would not incur the reproach that it is going behind the decree, because the decree being null and void, there would really be no decree at all. Vide Karan Singh vs. Chaman Paswan, (1955) 1 SCR 117 and Hiralal Patni vs. Kali Nath (1962) 2 SCR 747. It is, therefore, obvious that in the present case, it was competent to the executing court to examine whether the decree for eviction was a nullity on the ground that the civil court had no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the decree for eviction was passed. If the decree for eviction was nullity, the executing court could declare it to be such and decline to execute it against the respondent. 9. It is to be noted herein that it is not the case that where the court lost its inherent jurisdiction either to pass a decree or to execute the decree. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court considered the fact of retrospective amendment of Delhi Land Control Act in case of a pending suit which is not the case here. The other case relied on by Mr. Sharma in Radhi Dei (supra), the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court at para-4 of the judgment reiterated the same principle as enunciated by the Apex Court. In that case the learned single Judge after considering the fact of the case found the decree to be nullity as on the date it was passed by rendering inexecutability on account of specific order passed by the Tehsildar accepting claim of the judgment debtor. But in the case in hand, on the date of passing of the decree, the annual patta land in favour of the plaintiffs was very much in existence, which was stated to be cancelled only subsequently and accordingly, the principle of law and facts in that case are not the same. Apparently, in terms of the decree dated 30.6.95, the plaintiffs have not only title by also right and interest over the suit land and there is definite distinction between title and the right and interest. The right and interest as declared of the plaintiffs/decree-holders and decreed the suit against the petitioner/judgment debtor and the subsequent cancellation of the annual patta land in his favour will not any way affect the decree-holders from recovering the possession. 10. The right and interest as declared of the plaintiffs/decree-holders and decreed the suit against the petitioner/judgment debtor and the subsequent cancellation of the annual patta land in his favour will not any way affect the decree-holders from recovering the possession. 10. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.