ARVIND SYNDICATE PROP : SMT. BHAWARI BAI W/O LATE SRI. DUNGARMALJI Vs. M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANYS ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 4 BATAVIA CHAMBERS KUMARA KRUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are filed by the judgment debtors in Execution No. 25060/2012, 25080/2012, 25082/2012 and 25081/2012. The respondent namely M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited is the common decree holder in aforestated execution petitions. The decree holder M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited had obtained decree for possession in O.S. No. 17424/2006, O.S. No. 17469/2006, O.S. No. 17425/2006 and O.S. No. 17387/2006 in respect of different shops, which forms part and parcel of building called 'Mohan building', situate at Chickpet, Bangalore. The decree holder M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited had filed the aforestated execution petitions. The petitioners (judgment debtors) in aforestated execution petitions resisted execution of decree interalia contending that decrees made in O.S. No. 17424/2006, O.S. No. 17469/2006, O.S. No. 17425/2006 and O.S. No. 17387/2006 are nullity in the eye of law and they are vitiated by fraud. The learned judge of the Execution court has rejected their objections. Therefore, they are before this Court.

(2.) IN the circumstances, following point would arise for determination: Whether the Execution Court was justified in rejecting the contention of petitioner in CRP No. 341/2012 (defendant in O.S. No. 17424/2006 and Judgment Debtor in Execution No. 25060/2012), petitioner in CRP 342/2012 (defendant in O.S. No. 17469/2006 and judgment debtor in Execution No. 25080/2012) and petitioner in CRP 343/2012 (defendant in O.S. No. 17425/2006 and judgment debtor in Execution No. 25082/2012) and petitioner in CRP 344/2012 (defendant in O.S. No. 17387/2006 and judgment debtor in Execution No. 25081/2012), that decrees made in original suits are nullity in the eye of law and they are vitiated by fraud?

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for petitioners has made following submissions: I That the aforestated suits were filed by common respondent (common plaintiff in the aforestated suits) by suppressing memorandum of understanding dated 20.05.2006 entered into between petitioners and respondent in respect of shops, which are in occupation of petitioners in Mohan building, situate at Chickpet, Bangalore. In terms of memorandum of understanding dated 20.05.2006, petitioners ceased to be the tenants and they were in possession of respective shops as intending purchasers. The respondent herein had suppressed memorandum of understanding before the trial court, therefore, judgment is vitiated by fraud. II The aforestated suits were instituted on the file of 26th Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore. The court of 26th Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore did not have jurisdiction to try the suits, therefore, decrees made in the aforestated suits are void -ab -initio. The Execution Court should have dismissed the execution petitions on this ground.