Court Sets Aside Consent Decree, Appoints Receiver, Orders Expedited Hearing

The court set aside the consent decree dated 16th September 2012, appointed a court receiver to take possession of the suit premises, and directed the trial court to expedite the suit's hearing. The respondent was ordered to pay costs to the petitioners, and the court rejected the respondent's request for a stay on the appointment of the court receiver.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the consent decree dated 16th September 2012.
2. Allegations of fraud and forgery by the respondent.
3. Locus standi of the petitioners to challenge the consent decree.
4. Applicability of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Appointment of a court receiver for the suit premises.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Consent Decree:
The petitioner challenged the consent decree dated 16th September 2012, alleging it was obtained fraudulently. The decree was based on consent terms signed by the respondent and Mr. Shamsuddin Kasamali Qureshi, who claimed to be the constituted attorney of M/s. Drego Enterprises. However, no power of attorney was filed or referenced in the court records. The court found that the decree was obtained without proper authority and was based on fraudulent claims.

2. Allegations of Fraud and Forgery:
The petitioner presented evidence that Mr. Shamsuddin Kasamali Qureshi, a former peon of M/s. Drego Enterprises, had forged documents and misrepresented himself as the constituted attorney of the firm. The court noted multiple FIRs against Mr. Qureshi for forgery and fraud. The respondent's claim of having paid Rs. 2,60,000 to M/s. Drego Enterprises was unsupported by any proof of payment. The court concluded that the consent decree was obtained through fraud and forgery.

3. Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, being the rightful owners of the suit premises under a registered agreement for sale, had their names recorded in the society's records. The court held that they had the locus standi to challenge the consent decree as they were directly affected by the fraudulent actions of the respondent and Mr. Qureshi. The court rejected the trial judge's view that the petitioners had no locus standi.

4. Applicability of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The court held that it has inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside orders obtained by fraud. The court emphasized that it is its duty to prevent abuse of its process and to ensure justice. The court cited several judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Bank vs. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., affirming its inherent powers to recall orders obtained by fraud.

5. Appointment of a Court Receiver:
Given the fraudulent nature of the consent decree and the need to protect the suit premises, the court appointed a court receiver to take forcible possession of the suit premises. The receiver was directed to seal the premises until the disposal of the suit and for four weeks thereafter.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the consent decree dated 16th September 2012 and restored the suit to file. It appointed a court receiver to take possession of the suit premises and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit. The respondent was ordered to pay costs to the petitioners. The court rejected the respondent's request for a stay on the appointment of the court receiver.

---