TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in execution proceedings; (ii) Whether a plea of fraud, raised without pleading or proof, could justify interference with the execution of the eviction decree.
Issue (i): Whether a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in execution proceedings.
Analysis: The impugned order arose at an interlocutory stage and did not finally decide the lis. A revision under section 115, after amendment, is not available to challenge such an order. The High Court therefore ought not to have entertained the revision petition against the execution-related order.
Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable and the High Court erred in entertaining it.
Issue (ii): Whether a plea of fraud, raised without pleading or proof, could justify interference with the execution of the eviction decree.
Analysis: Fraud may unravel judicial proceedings only when it is properly pleaded and proved. Here, fraud had neither been pleaded in the earlier proceedings nor established by evidence. The objections raised in execution merely attempted to reopen issues already concluded in the eviction proceedings, including ownership, landlord-tenant relationship, and applicability of the rent law, all of which stood finally determined.
Conclusion: The plea of fraud could not be accepted, and the execution of the decree could not be obstructed on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside, the decree-holder's right to execute the eviction decree was restored, and the execution proceedings were directed to be concluded expeditiously with exemplary costs against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: A revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not lie against an interlocutory order that does not finally determine the lis, and a plea of fraud can defeat a concluded decree only if it is specifically pleaded and proved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
