Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Civil Revision No. 938 of 1986, against the order passed by the learned Appellte Authority, the execution of the ejectment order was stayed. However, the said order was vacated by this Court vide order dated 30.09.1986 which reads as under: -

" Shri Mahajan has stated at the bar that the son of his client has come and has told him that they are not willing to pay the arrears of rent because the parties have entered into an agreement dated 28.9.1986 by virtue of which the respondent has agreed to sell the property in dispute to them for Rs.3500/- out of which Rs.500/- have been given to the respondent as earnest money. But the execution of any such agreement or compromise has been denied by the respondent who is present in Court.
In view of the above, the ex parte stay order dated 4.4.1986 is hereby vacated and the respondent would be entitled to execute the ejectment order despite the alleged agreement".

On 28.10.1986, the petitioner sought execution of the ejectment order after stay was vacated by this Court. The tenant, present respondent filed objections under Order 21 Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") which were dismissed on 17.11.1986. The respondent thereafter filed another set of objections under Section 47 of the Code on 13.12.1986 which were dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 15.09.1988. The respondent has not challenged the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 15.09.1988.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has filed objections under Section 47 of the Code in December 1986 i.e., after the filing of the suit for specific performance on 08.11.1986. The respondent has not disclosed the factum of filing of a suit for specific performance though the decree in such suit was passed on 01.10.1987. The objections were dismissed on 15.9.1988. Even in a subsequent suit for injunction, plaint of which is Exhibit AX, the respondent has not disclosed the filing of suit for specific performance though the respondent has obtained a decree for specific performance much prior to the filing of suit for injunction. It is further contended that the petitioner came to know of the suit for specific performance and the decree passed therein when the petitioner filed another set of objections dated 24.4.1989 under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code. Therefore, the application for setting aside of judgment and decree cannot be said to be beyond the period of limitation. The respondent has kept the decree obtained close to his chest and in secrecy so as to harm the interest of the petitioner, who is prosecuting an order of ejectment. It is also contended that the petitioner was contesting the rent proceedings and the objections filed by the respondents. The petitioner denied the execution of the agreement at the very first instance when this Court vacated the stay of execution of ejectment order on 30.09.1986. There was no reason for the petitioner not to contest the proceedings in a suit for specific performance. The respondent has filed such a suit in a clandestine manner, proceeded to obtain a decree on the basis of forged report of refusal from the postman and process server and did not disclose either the filing of the suit or decree obtained in other proceedings pending at that time. It is, thus, contended that the action of the respondent in obtaining the decree for specific performance was an act of fraud based upon concealment of material facts and, thus, decree for specific performance is liable to be set aside obtained as a result of fraud. It will not confer any legality only by producing witnesses in respect of proof of service of summons upon the petitioner.

The respondent has relied upon agreement dated 28.09.1986 before this court during the hearing of an application for stay. Said agreement was denied to be executed by the petitioner. This Court vacated the stay order on 30.09.1986. Numerous proceedings have taken in execution proceedings but the respondent has not disclosed the filing of civil suit for specific performance. If there was a bona fide and genuine settlement, the respondent would have disclosed to the Executing Court and to seek resistance to the execution of the decree on the basis of agreement. But the respondent kept the decree close to his chest so as to continue with his possession on false pretext after the ejectment order was passed by the Court. The legitimate claim of the petitioner to seek execution of the ejectment order cannot be set at naught on the basis of fraudulent decree passed on 01.10.1987. The findings recorded in objections under Section 47 of the Code having attained finality shows that the act of the respondent is that of a dishonest and fraudulent person. Even if the respondent has been able to produce certain witnesses in respect of receipt of summon but the statements of such witnesses cannot be relied upon. It is well known that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances do not. In the present case, the witnesses have said nothing but lie, whereas the circumstances show that the decree obtained is nothing but a fraudulent act.