DEV. BHARTIYA FINANCIAL Vs. PRINCE SHARDA MINOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since identical questions of law have been raised in identical facts in all these revisions, as such we have taken up these cases together and are disposing of these by this common order.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted, that the executing Court below fell into error while passing the impugned orders by rejecting the objections filed by her client. According to her, her client was never served in any of the cases during the course of proceedings of complaints. And was set ex parte and ex parte orders were passed in all the four complaints. Now those are being executed by the respondents. These revisions have arisen out of the executions.

(3.) ON a question of law posed to her by us, as to whether an executing Court can go behind a decree/order unless it is shown to be either having been obtained by fraud or being void, she fairly stated, that this is not the situation in these cases. Therefore according to us District Forum below could not have gone behind the orders passed in the complaints out of which these revisions have arisen. This according to us is settled proportion of law, and could not be controverted on behalf of the petitioner.