My opinion is that above case is not a jurisdictional error.
All jurisdictional errors are error of law but not other way round always and the gap is between the two is wide enough to distinguish them from each other.
Had the party approached court within the Bar of Limitation, was the court competent to hear the matter?
-------------If the answer is Yes, then in above case court may have erred to exercise the jurisdiction but it it is not a inherent want of jurisdiction.
Validity of order order may challenged in execution or by way of collateral proceedings if the order is void ab initiobut if it is voidable the one has to take recourse to appeal or revision at competent jurisdiction.
What may be deemed as void ab initio order?
If the order suffers from inherent want of jurisdiction (if Court didn't have jurisdiction at all to exercise it, then applying it erroneously does not come into picture here, and hence it is one of such instance of 'want of jurisdiction')
If Order is obtained by fraud upon court (as again fraud upon the opposite party) but in the latter case, one again has to get it recalled/set aside by moving application under sec 151 or under review sec 114. But colleteral proceedings aren't justfied (else people would resort to filing a declaratory suits or collateral suits in the same jurisdiction 'to get the orders declared as null and void' instead of approaching to appeal or review jurisdiction!!!) as RJ does come into action.
I feel that in above case 2nd suit as a collateral proceedings is a abuse of process.