(Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) (Oral) - Since identical questions of law have been raised in identical facts in all these revisions, as such we have taken up these cases together and are disposing of these by this common order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the executing Court below fell into error while passing the impugned orders by rejecting the objections filed by her client. According to her, her client was never served in any of the cases during the course of proceedings of complaints. And was set ex parte and ex parte orders were passed in all the four complaints. Now those are being executed by the respondents. These revisions have arisen out of the executions.

3. Further according to her, her client had paid the entire amount due and outstanding payable to the petitioner to the respondent in each case against receipt before filing of the complaints by the respondents. Since registered office of her client has been shifted from the address as given in the complaint therefore, petitioner was set ex parte and finally ex parte order was passed. Objections have not been determined by the District Forum below, therefore, it fell into error by rejecting those while passing the impugned order.

4. On a question of law posed to her by us, as to whether an executing Court can go behind a decree/order unless it is shown to be either having been obtained by fraud or being void, she fairly stated, that this is not the situation in these cases. Therefore according to us District Forum below could not have gone behind the orders passed in the complaints out of which these revisions have arisen. This according to us is settled proportion of law, and could not be controverted on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner persisted with vehemence, that for doing complete justice between the

parties, it is necessary in the interest of justice to allow these revision petitions and remand those to the District Forum below with a direction to determine the objections filed in the executions and then proceed further in accordance with law. Prayer made prima facie appears to be innocuous. However in our opinion, it is wholly misconceived. Reason being that the petitioners want to reopen the entire case based on payments having been allegedly made to the respondents in all these cases even before filing of the complaints by them. What was the remedy available to the petitioners even if it was set ex parte and final orders were passed by the District Forum below, learned Counsel again fairly stated, that those orders should have been appealed against, that has admittedly not been done.

6. Finally it was urged on behalf of the petitioners, that if the prayer made by her client is not accepted, it will lead to undue enrichment of the respondents in these cases. Therefore, interest of justice demands that these revisions need to be allowed. This argument is being noted simply to be rejected, in the light of the facts briefly noted hereinabove.

7. At this stage learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to catch the last straw by submitting, that non-bailable warrants against the Managing Director of the petitioner have been issued, whereas first of all the assets of the petitioner Company should have been ordered to be attached. We are not saying anything in this behalf because neither rules of Civil Procedure, nor of Law of Evidence are applicable to the proceedings before the Foras as the litigation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is neither adversarial, but is inquisitional for providing inexpensive and quick redressal of grievances of consumes like respondents in the cases. However the foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have to act as per law hardly needs to be reiterated.

8. No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion all these revisions petitions are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear