Validity of a decree is unaffected by the subsequent formation of a local court or death of a co-appellant represented by heirs.

The applicant (judgment debtor) challenged an order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bhachau, which rejected their objections (Exhibit-15) in Execution Petition No. 3 of 2024

The applicant contended that the underlying decree passed by the Additional District Court, Anjar on 11.03.2024 was a nullity because a new Additional District Court had been formed at Bhachau in 2020, and the appeal should have been transferred there

The applicant further contended the decree was passed in favor of a deceased person (original appellant No. 1)

1. Whether a decree passed by a court that originally had jurisdiction is rendered void if a new court with territorial jurisdiction is established during the pendency of proceedings, absent an administrative transfer order

2. Whether a decree becomes a nullity if one of the joint appellants dies during the pendency of the appeal, while the legal heir (co-appellant) remains on record

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, limits revisional jurisdiction to instances of jurisdictional error or gross illegality.

Appeals instituted prior to a notification changing pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction remain maintainable in the original court unless specifically transferred by administrative order (Kiritbhai Jaykrishna Thakkar v. M/S Sandipkumar Bhikhabhai Patel And Co.)

A decree is not a nullity if the estate of a deceased party is substantiality represented by a surviving legal heir already on record.

The Additional District Court, Anjar, indisputably possessed jurisdiction when the appeal was filed in 2019.

The mere formation of the Bhachau Court in 2020 did not automatically divest the Anjar court of its authority without a formal administrative transfer order, which the applicant failed to produce.

Regarding the death of the first appellant, the court observed that his wife (respondent No. 2) was already a co-appellant and his legal heir; since the estate was represented, the decree remained valid and executable by the surviving heir.

The applicant failed to raise these jurisdictional objections during the appellate stage, only doing so at the execution stage.

The decree was not a nullity because the deceased's legal representative was already a party to the proceedings.

The High Court rejected the revision application in limine, affirming the Executing Court's order as no jurisdictional error was found warranting interference under Section 115 of the CPC.