Question

Principle: Decision of Court is Null and Void, if it is given by court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Facts: A obtains decision from a court which did not have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter.

• A. Decision can be enforced because both the parties were present
• B. Decision cannot be enforced because decision is null and void
• C. Decision can be enforced because it is given a court
• D. Decision can be enforced

Hint:

A court's jurisdiction over the subject matter is crucial for enforcing its decision.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

According to the principle, any decision passed by a court that does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter is null and void. Even if both parties are present, the decision remains invalid because the court did not have the authority to rule on the matter. Therefore, such a decision cannot be enforced.
Thus, the correct answer is (B).
Option (A) is incorrect because the presence of parties does not grant jurisdiction. Option (C) is incorrect as jurisdiction is required for enforcement. Option (D) is also incorrect because a decision made without jurisdiction is not enforceable.

Answer 2

This question checks whether a decision from a court that never had jurisdiction over the subject matter can still be enforced. Let's go through the options.

1. Decision can be enforced because both parties were present: The presence of both parties in court has nothing to do with whether the court had power over the subject matter. A court cannot gain jurisdiction it never had simply because the litigants showed up.
2. Decision cannot be enforced because the decision is null and void: The principle is direct on this: a decision from a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is null and void from the outset. A void decision has no legal existence to enforce, so it cannot be enforced.
3. Decision can be enforced because it is given by a court: Being issued by a court in some general sense is not enough; the court must have had jurisdiction over that particular subject matter. Without that, the fact that it is a court's order does not save it.
4. Decision can be enforced: This option offers no basis for enforcement and directly contradicts the principle, which voids any decision made without the required jurisdiction.

Since the deciding court never had jurisdiction over the subject matter in the first place, its decision is void and carries no force that could be enforced.

So the correct answer is the decision cannot be enforced because it is null and void.

Answer 3

This question tests whether anything can substitute for the one thing the principle actually requires: jurisdiction over the subject matter. Each wrong option offers a substitute that does not work.

1. Decision can be enforced because both parties were present: Presence of the parties is offered here as a substitute for jurisdiction, but the principle ties validity to the court's power over the subject matter, not to who showed up in the courtroom.
2. Decision cannot be enforced because it is null and void: This option applies the principle exactly as stated, since the deciding court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, its decision has no legal existence to enforce.
3. Decision can be enforced because it is given by a court: This option substitutes the general fact of being a court's order for the specific requirement of jurisdiction over that subject matter, which the principle treats as essential and not optional.
4. Decision can be enforced: This option offers no substitute at all for the missing jurisdiction; it simply asserts enforceability against the principle's own terms.

None of the substitutes offered, presence of the parties, or the general fact of being issued by a court, can fill the gap left by the missing jurisdiction, so the decision remains void.

Therefore, the correct answer is the decision cannot be enforced because it is null and void.