MANJULA CHELLUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2 against the decree-holder challenging the orders dated 30-11-2001 on a memo filed by the judgment-debtor dated 19-10-2001 in ex. Case No. 247 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE facts that led to the filing of this revision petition in brief are as under: the respondent herein had filed O. S. No. 7905 of 1995 against the revision petitioners for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- and odd with interest. The said suit ended in a compromise as the compromise petition came to be filed on 10-11-1998. On the very same day the suit was decreed with consent of both the parties. Subsequently, the present Execution Petition No. 247 of 1999 came to be filed for recovery of the amount.

( 3 ) IT is also gathered from the arguments of the learned Counsels and also the records that several applications came to be filed by the decree-holder and also the judgment-debtor in the execution petition. Challenging the said orders, revisions were also filed before this Court.

( 4 ) ONE of the important applications that came to be filed by the judgment-debtor was an application under Section 47. In the said application they have specifically taken a pleading that fraud was played on the revision petitioners in obtaining the decree. The revision petitioners/judgment-debtors filed a memo on 19-10-2001 seeking the permission of the Court for recording evidence on the allegations of fraud played on them. Said memo came to be rejected on 30-11-2001. Aggrieved by the said order this revision petition came to be filed by the revision petitioners.

( 5 ) IT is contended that while considering the application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking certain reliefs on 29-9-2001 while disposing of said application, the learned Judge observed that no order would be passed on the factum of fraud, as it would be considered at the relevant time. This observation was made in the orders dated 29-9-2001 as the judgment-debtors alleged fraud in the objections to the prayer made by the decree-holder seeking attachment of movables. Therefore, the Court ought not to have dismissed the memo and has committed the serious error holding that the judgments relied upon by the revision petitioners were not applicable to the facts of the present case.

( 6 ) IT is further contended that the Apex Court has held that question as to whether decree obtained by fraud can be gone into even at the stage of execution. In that view of the matter when the compromise decree is a result of fraud, which amounts to nullity in law, the Executing court had to consider this question before proceeding with the execution of the decree. Instead he erred in holding that he cannot go beyond the decree. He also relied on several judgments, which would be mentioned in detail hereinafter.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent/decree-holder contended that though in the three applications which came to be filed on 2-7-1999 allegation of fraud was made, the specific prayer to hold enquiry regarding the said fraud was asked only in the month of October 2001. He further argued that the revision petitioners cannot seek the intervention of the Court to go beyond the decree and decide whether fraud was played on the revision petitioners or not? He also relied on several decisions, which would be narrated in the subsequent paragraphs.

( 8 ) ON hearing the arguments of the learned Counsels for both the parties, the serious question that would fall for the consideration of this court is whether the Executing Court can hold enquiry and decide with regard to the committal of fraud on the revision petitioners by the respondent in obtaining a compromise decree as alleged by the revision petitioners?

( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY, O. S. No. 7905 of 1997 was decreed on 10-11-1998. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners tried to bring to the notice of the Court that the suit was filed on 31-10-1997 and before the notice could be served on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document