NIRMALA DEVI SRIVASTAVA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard petitioner's counsel and learned counsel appearing for the caveator.

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 3 filed suit for rent ejectment against the present petitioner which was decreed ex parte on 27.10.93 as the petitioner, after filing vakalatnama and written statement did not participate in the proceedings any further. The petitioner then moved an application purporting to be under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree but the same was not also prosecuted and was dismissed in default. The decree-holder respondent No. 3 thereafter put the decree in execution, and before the executing court, the petitioner filed objections purporting to be under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner was not the tenant in the premises in question but it was her husband who was the tenant. She further alleged that she never filed written statement nor had engaged any counsel and she also never appeared in Court nor she was served with any summons. Before the executing court, an application was also moved on her behalf that the signatures appearing on vakalatnama and the written statement be got compared with her admitted signatures. The executing Court rejected the said application and the petitioner allowed the said order to become final as she never challenged that order in any court of law. She again moved an application with the same prayer and the same has been rejected by the executing court while rejecting the objections of the petitioner filed under Section 47. C.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner on account of rejection of her application for comparison of her signatures by an expert. The question of prejudice can only be considered if it is found that objections under Section 47, C.P.C. against the execution of the decree were maintainable tn law.