Vidya Bai vs Mathra Dass and anr.

S.P. Goyal, J. (Oral)

In the execution proceedings, the petitioner raised objections that she was not served in the trial Court or the appellate Court and, therefore, the decree was nullity and inexecutable against her and that she was a direct tenant under the mortgagordecreeholder. None of the objections were maintainable or could be taken notice of by the executing Court. The decree is an ex parte decree against the objector. If she has not been properly served, the remedy available to her was to get the ex parte decree set aside by trial court or to go up in appeal against that in appellate court or to file a suit to get is set aside on the basis of fraud. The executing Court cannot hold the decree to be invalid on this ground. Similarly, the plea that she was a tenant could only be raised in the suit and it is not open to the executing Court as inexecutable when tenancy is alleged to be from period prior to the filing of the suit. No fault, thereof, can be found with the order of the executing Court and this petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.