ORDER
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No. 228 of 1985. The respondents herein have filed the suit O.S.No. 228 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai for arrears of rent. The suit was originally dismissed on 19.9.1989. The respondents filed an appeal in A.S.No. 31 of 1990 and the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit was decreed as prayed for and that judgment and decree have become final. When the plaintiffs/respondents herein filed a petition to execute the decree, the defendant/petitioner herein filed an application stating that the judgment and decree of the appellate court cannot be executed and hence the execution petition has to be dismissed. The executing court found that the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 31 of 1990 have become final, against which second appeal was filed and it was also dismissed in the admission stage itself. Therefore, the executing court found that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and rejected the application filed by the defendant and held that decree is valid in law.
2. Mr. C. Ramakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a petition has been filed under Section 47, C.P.C. and the executing court has the power to go into the question regarding the validity of decree.
3. It is well settled that the executing court cannot go into the correctness or validity of the decree except where it is a nullity. I am of the opinion that the case pleaded by the revision petitioner does not come under the category of nullity as it cannot be said that it is a decree of nullity. The defendant was unsuccessful in the first appellate court and the second appeal filed was also dismissed in the admission stage. If the executing court is allowed to go into the expression regarding the validity of the decree passed by the appellate courts, it will lead to a situation that executing court is allowed to sit in judgment over correctness of the decree passed by the higher court. I am of the view that if the plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a vital document which surfaced later was not considered by the court at the time of passing of the judgment is accepted, there will be no finality attached to any judicial proceedings. I am of the view that the standard of diligence required from the defendant is high, particularly, in a contested trial and he must produce all evidence he relies on in defence and it would be great injustice to allow the defendant to introduce certain new evidence for the first time. After the judgment and decree have become final, which was available with the defendant but failed to produce the same and seek to set at naught a valid decree by praying to the executing court no to execute the decree. Hence, the court below is correct in dismissing the application. I do not find any reason to entertain this revision. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 10831 of 1997 is dismissed.