decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.” 12.2 It is all too well-settled that a Court cannot ‘go behind’ a decree. Reference may be made to Rajasthan Financial Corpn. v. Man Industrial Corpn. Ltd.9; SBI v. Indexport Registered10; J&K Bank Ltd. v. Jagdish C. Gupta11; and Rajasthan Udyog v. Hindustan Engg. & Industries Ltd.12 8 (2021) 6 SCC 418 9 (2003) 7 SCC 522 10 (1992) 3 SCC 159 11 (2004) 10 SCC 568 12 (2020) 6 SCC 660 15-SLP(C) 9202-9204 OF 201612.3 In Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra13, it has been held that if a decree is passed by a competent court after due adjudication of merits, it operates as re judicata. If the same is nullity, its validity can be questioned at any stage. It was observed: “26. Thus it is settled law that normally a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, after adjudication on merits of