The central legal point established is the Court's duty to prevent fraud on the Court and ensure fair proceedings, including the investigation of potential fraud and the gathering of relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in CRP (NPD) No.461 of 2022 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of CPC., praying to set aside the fair and decretal order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, Vellore District dated 15.12.2021 in E.A.No.132 of 2021 in E.A.No.89 of 2021 in E.P.No.240 of 2016 in RCOP.No.63 of 2011 and to order the said E.A.)

Prayer in CRP (NPD) No.291 of 2020 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of CPC., praying to call for the entire records in respect of the decretal order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, dated 29.11.2019 in E.P.No.240/2016 in RCOP.No.63/2011 on the file of Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif, Vellore District and set aside the same.)

Common Order:

The Revision Petitioner in CRP (NPD) No.461 of 2022 herein is a third party-obstructor to the execution proceedings in E.P. 240 of 2016, which is filed by the decree-holder Landlord in RCOP 63 of 2011 for delivery of property pursuant to the exparte order of eviction that he had obtained. The revision petitioners in CRP (NPD) 291 of 2020 are the tenants who are facing eviction in the said Execution petition.

2. The facts as presented by the revision petitioners which led up to the filing of the Revision, may be briefly stated;

* A certain Kalaivanan had purchased a piece of vacant site Vide sale deed dated 09.05.2002. In this, a residential building comprising a ground floor and a first floor, each measuring 125 sq.mts, was built besides a compound wall. The construction was made with the aid of the sale prospects of a certain family property. In other words, it is a joint investment made by Kalaivanan and his mother.

* While so, Kalaivanan borrowed a sum of Rs.2.0 lakhs from a certain Babu. On 04.01.2010, Babu obtained a sale agreement in his favour and also a General Power of Attorney in favour of his friend Kumaran vis-a-vis the same property, both executed by Kalaivanan. This according to the revision petitioner in CRP 461 of 2022 were obtained as security for the repayment of the loan that Kalaivanan had obtained.

* On 07.12.2010, Kumaran, the General Power of Attorney of Kalaivanan had executed a sale deed in favour of certain Balakumar. A rent note even dated 07.12.2020 also came into existence between Balakumar and Kalaivanan. According to the case of the revision petitioner, this document was fabricated by Balakumar.

* Few months thereafter, Balakumar laid RCOP.No.63 of 2011 for eviction on grounds of wilful default in the matter of payment of rent. This RCOP was laid against Kalaivanan and his wife. While so, Kalaivanan died and his children were brought on record as additional respondents. On 24.11.2015, an ex-parte order of eviction was passed. Now, the respondents in the RCOP came forward with necessary Application to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction along with I.A.No.184 of 2018 for condonation of delay of 961 days in taking out the former Application. This Application for condonation of delay was dismissed, challenging which, Kalaivanan-s widow and children preferred CRP.No.1085 of 2021 on 15.06.2021. This came to be dismissed too.

* In the meantime, Balakumar, the landlord in the RCOP filed E.P.No.240 of 2016 for delivery. On 29.11.2019, the Execution Court ordered delivery and this is being challenged in CRP.No.291 of 2020.

* Be that at it may, the mother of Kalaivanan would now come out with two separate suits. The first suit in O.S.No.163 of 2015 for partition, wherein, she alleges that the property in question is not the exclusive property of Kalaivanan but, it is a family property. The second suit that she laid was O.S.No.79 of 2017 in which she has challenged (a) the sale deed which the Power of Attorney of Kalaivanan had executed in favour of Balakumar, the landlord in RCOP.No.63 of 2011; and (b) the decree passed in the said RCOP.

* During the pendency of these two s