( 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 a