STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                       APPEAL NO. 1418 OF 2017

              (Against order dated 12-07-2017 in Misc. Case No.

                  30/2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur )

M/s. Niharika Automobiles

(Authorized Dealer Bajaj Auto)

Near Railway Crossing Sipah, Sadar

Jaunpur. Through the Partner Navneet Yadav

                                                                                         ...Appellant

                                                           Vs.

  Mussaib Hussain,  S/o Muchchan

  R/o Village Shabuddinpur

  P.S. Gaurabadshahpur, District Jaunpur   

                                                                                                ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Appellant                 :    Sri Ram Babu Srivastava, Advocate.

For the Respondent              :   

Dated : 14-08-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

          MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT(ORAL)

            Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused order dated 12-07-2017 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No. 30/2015 Mussaib Hussain V/s Manager Bajaj M/s. Niharika Automobiles whereby the District Consumer Forum has rejected objection filed by appellant and has passed order to issue NBW against appellant.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that present Misc. case has been registered for execution of judgment and order dated 29-12-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 182/2014 Manager Bajaj M/s. Niharika Automobiles.

It is further contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the said judgment and order dated 29-12-2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jaunpur is an exparte order and has been obtained by fraud. As such appellant has moved objection before District Consumer Forum in execution proceeding. The District Consumer Forum has rejected objection of appellant without going through merits.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. V/s Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others and reported in II (1993) BC

:2:

546=(1994) 1 SCC 1 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

‘Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ‘ecclesiastical or temporal’ observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. Ist is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first Court or by the highest Court has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.”

I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant and perused judgment of Honourable Apex Court referred by learned Counsel for the appellant.

In the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others V/s Achyut Kashi Nath Karekak and another reported in IV(2011) CPJ 35(SC) the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to recall or review its order passed earlier. The plea of fraud raised by the appellant before District Consumer Forum in execution proceeding requires review of judgment which is not permis