( 1. ) WAS the Executing Court, justified in holding that the eviction decree passed in favour of applicant (decree-holder) stood vitiated by fraud? that is the point for determination in this revision.

( 2. ) APPLICANT had filed a suit for eviction of respondents No. l to 5 (judgment-debtors) from the suit house. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Eviction decree of the trial Court was maintained up to the second appeal by this Court. Since, the judgment-debtors failed to hand over vacant possession, applicant put the decree in execution.

( 3. ) IN execution proceedings, respondent No. 6 and 7 both filed separate applications under Order XXI Rule -. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure to resist the. execution of the eviction decree and delivery of possession of the suit house. Each objector set up his/her. own title over the suit property and claimed that decree holder could not obtain possession from the judgment-debtors, they being tenants of the objectors.

( 4. ) APPLICANT opposed the applications under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code. After enquiry, executing Court rejected applications of respondent 6 and 7 as is clear from the findings recorded in paragraph 14 to 16 and 19 to 21 of the impugned order. But the Court below went on further and held that the applicant obtained the eviction decree by playing fraud, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath AIR 1994 S. C. 853, it was unexecutable and the Court below refused to deliver possession of the tenanted premises to the applicant. Hence this revision by the decree-holder as stated above.

( 5. ) IT is pertinent to point out that the objectors did not challenge the order of rejection of their application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC but they opposed the revision petition filed by the decree-holder. Judgment-debtors chose to remain silent spectators, no arguments were advance on their behalf. After hearing rival submissions and going through the record, in the opinion of this Court while passing the impugned order, the Court below exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by law.

( 6. ) IT is undisputed that applicant purchased the suit property from Smt. Aulia Begum through a registered sale deed dated 14. 8. 1997. Thereafter, applicant filed eviction suit against respondent No. 1 to 5. Respondents No. 6 and 7, Smt. Rashida Begum and Ashfaq Bahadur are close relations of Smt. Aulia Begum and were aware of earlier litigation including execution of sale deed as aforesaid. Judgment-debtors contested the eviction suit right up to this court without any avail. The eviction decree passed against them under M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, was maintained and became final upon dismissal of the second appeal preferred by judgment-debtors. Since the judgment-debtors failed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises, the decree was put in execution. No objection was raised by the judgment-debtors. On the other hand respondent No. 6 and 7 came forward with applications under order XXI Rule 97 of the Code. The executing Court while rejecting their applications, held that the applicant/decree-holder could not execute the eviction decree and obtain possession of the suit house because the decree was tainted with fraud.

( 7. ) WAS the eviction decree passed -in favour of applicant vitiated by fraud and as such a nullity?

( 8. ) BROADLY speaking, fraud embraces all means which human ingenuity can devise to gain an advantage over another. In its general or generic sense, it comprises all acts, omissions involving breach of legal duty and resultant damage to another or violation of a trust or confidence which such person had a right to repose in him. Amongst other things, fraud consists of deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or to surrender some rights and which accomplishes the end designed. In other words, some deceitful practice or willful device resorted to, with intention to dep