M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE first respondent before me, the Mysore State Agro industries Corporation Limited, had filed a suit against M/s. Bhadra and Company, a partnership firm with three partners, for recovery of certain dues. This suit being Original Suit No. 132 of 1973 was decreed on 4-4-1975. According to the learned advocate who appears for the Corporation, Miscellaneous application No. 5 of 1976 was filed against this decree which was done on 17-1-1976. Finally, Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 1976 came to be disposed of on 19-11-1976 when the matter was remanded to the Trial Court on the ground that the original decree was an ex parte decree and the Trial Court was directed to take up the matter and dispose of the same according to law. Thereafter, some compromise terms were presented to the Court and the suit came to be decreed on 4-3-1977. The Corporation, after the lapse of over 9 years, took out Execution Case No. 218 of 1986 for execution of this decree and it appears that about a year thereafter, it came to the notice of the Corporation that it had applied for execution of decree dated 4-4-1975 which was in fact the decree which had been set aside and therefore, the execution proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn. In the year 1988, fresh execution proceedings being Execution Case No. 194 of 1988 were instituted for execution of the decree dated 4-3-1977. This proceeding was contested by one of the partners by name T. Duggappa who took up a very ingenious plea to the effect that he had nothing to do with the partnership firm or with the fertiliser business. He denied having entered into any transaction with the Corporation and consequently, a situation arose whereby his identity was required to be established. As is characteristic in these cases, the manner in which the proceeding was conducted was such that the executing Court recorded the finding that the identity of this person was not established and therefore, dismissed the proceeding as against him. As is characteristic in these cases, the manner in which the proceeding was conducted was such that the executing Court recorded the finding that the identity of this person was not established and therefore, dismissed the proceeding as against him. As far as the remaining two persons are concerned, respondent 3 to the original proceeding filed the present civil revision petition and his whole case is that the decree which is now sought to be executed namely, the decree dated 4-3-1977, has been passed behind his back and he alleges fraud insofar as according to him, he had never engaged Advocate Ramanathan who is supposed to have filed the compromise terms and he further contends that he had never engaged the Advocates who filed the Miscellaneous Petition No. 5 of 1976 and that according to him, the passing of the subsequent decree is down right fraudulent. The other partner original defendant 4 is also represented before me and supports the case made out by the petitioner in respect of these submissions. The executing Court has come to the conclusion that the decree is executable as against these two persons and it is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been filed. ( 2 ) THIS is a very unusual proceeding and therefore, it will call for out of the ordinary orders also. It is not often that litigants have the courage to take up pleas of this type, but they have boldly done so out of the confidence that the Courts will be absolutely helpless in finding out what the true facts are. Their confidence is perhaps well placed considering that the respondent 1-Corporation instead of recovering the public funds that it is dealing with, has assisted the respondents all the way in every one of these tactics. The decree was passed originally on 4-4-1975 and according to the Corporation, after the matter was reopened, for the second time, the suit was finally decreed on 4-3-1977. For 9 years, no steps were taken to execute that decree. Thereafter, on the Corporation's own admission, execution proceedings were taken out in respect of the wrong decree which were withdrawn and once again, the present execution proceedings were started. For 9 years, no steps were taken to execute that decree. Thereafter, on the Corporation's own admission, execution proceedings were taken out in respect of the wrong decree which were withdrawn and once again, the present execution proceedings were started. One of the partners took up the convenient plea that he was not the person who dealt with the Corporation and the learned Judge has weakly allowed him to get out of the proceedings because of the fact that the corporation has failed to establish that he was the party with whom the Corporation was dealing. Obviously, where lakhs of rupees of public funds are involved, there is a file full of secondary evidence, none of which was produced before the Trial court nor was anything done to prevent this state of affairs from taking place. The remaining two partners were obviously encouraged by this state of affairs and as far as they are concerned, they deny having engaged any Advocate to have the matter reopened, they also deny having had anything to do with the compromise that was filed and the contention taken up is that, if the decree of 1975 were to be executed, that it is time-barred and if the decree of 1977 were to be executed, that this cannot be done because, it was obtained by fraud and totally behind their back. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocates who represent the petitioner and respondent 4 who is the other partner, both submitted that the filing of Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 1976 was a fraud and that they had never engaged any Advocates for this purpose. What the emphasis is that if somebody is supposed to have represented them without their instructions, that they are not bound by any order or decree which the Court has passed and that consequently, it is very necessary to enquire into the matter and find out as to whether or not the decree is executable against them. Their main contention is that an enquiry as is contemplated by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code ought to have been conducted by the executing Court and that therefore, the matter should be remanded. The learned Advocate who represents respondent 1 points out to me that such an enquiry was in fact conducted and the order passed by the executing court fully establishes this fact. The learned Advocate who represents respondent 1 points out to me that such an enquiry was in fact conducted and the order passed by the executing court fully establishes this fact. He therefore, submits that the question of asking for any further enquiry at this point of time would be superfluous and that this plea must be turned down. Normally, I would have upheld this submission, but in my considered view, it is very necessary that this matter be properly looked into by the executing Court, and that a full-fledged enquiry be held so that all the correct facts come out into the open once and for all. Prima facie, it is a little difficult to accept both the versions, the first one that the Corporation would take out execution proceedings against a person who is not a partner as also the second version, namely that the petitioner and respondent 4 would not have applied for reopening the matter after the original decree was passed. In this regard, there is some debate as to the circumstances under which the original decree was passed. The petitioner's learned Advocate submits that the decree was passed after a contest and that therefore, there was no question of his client applying for the matter to be reopened. That argument does not necessarily have to be accepted, because, one does come across numerous occasions when parties do apply to the Court for reopening the matter despita the fact that they were represented. More importantly, however, I have checked the order sheet of the Court which very clearly mentions that the original decree was an ex parte decree. This folly explains why an application would have been made to the Court for reopening the matter and the Court set aside the original decree and reopened the matter. Under these circumstances, the second decree came to be passed. If nobody had engaged Advocates to file the miscellaneous application, there is no explanation as to why the original decree was set aside and more importantly, why on the second occasion a fresh decree had to be passed. These are all aspects of the matter which the executing Court ought to have applied its mind to and ought to have found out the answers to these vexed questions. These are all aspects of the matter which the executing Court ought to have applied its mind to and ought to have found out the answers to these vexed questions. More importantly, just as it is necessary to give the benefit to a litigant against whom a decree is wrongly or unjustifiably sought to be executed, it is equally necessary to rigorously punish litigants who take up false and untenable pleas before the Court and waste the judicial time of several forums. It has become the order of the day to take up such pleas with the confidence that either the Court will do nothing or even if the party is found out, that the Court will let them get away with an apology. To my mind, this case presents an extremely serious set of facts and it is for this reason that a de novo enquiry is necessary. ( 4 ) THE impugned order dated 10th April, 1992 which fails to go into all material aspects that have been outlined by me, is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded to the executing court with the following specific directions : (a) The Court concerned shall request the Court at Bangalore to forward the original records in relation to the case including the records in relation to the Miscellaneous application No. 5 of 1976. On receipt of this order, the Court at Bangalore shall be informed of the nature of the enquiry, and the Bangalore Court shall be requested to ensure that the records are stored and transmitted in safe custody. Once the records come to the executing Court, the same shall be taken charge of by the learned Judge and kept in safe custody and he shall ensure that none of the parties have any access to these records. (b) The executing Court shall within the framework of section 47, Civil Procedure Code, hold an enquiry for purposes of determining in the first instance, the identity of the respondent 2 to the execution proceeding. For this purpose, the first respondent shall produce all relevant records including his signatures, photographs or any other material which is in their possession. (b) The executing Court shall within the framework of section 47, Civil Procedure Code, hold an enquiry for purposes of determining in the first instance, the identity of the respondent 2 to the execution proceeding. For this purpose, the first respondent shall produce all relevant records including his signatures, photographs or any other material which is in their possession. (c) As far as the petitioner and respondent 4 are concerned, the executing Court shall afford them an opportunity of establishing the stands taken up by them and the Court shall thereafter, from the record and from such other evidence that the Court can summon or lay hands on, decide the question as to whether or not the Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 1976 was in fact preferred by the firm and its partners. The Court shall also ascertain whether the compromise terms that were entered into on the basis of which the decree that was passed were validly presented to the Court and whether the Court was justified in having passed the decree. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Court shall pass orders according to law on the execution application. The Court is however, directed that if it emerges in the course of this enquiry that any of the three partners have made any false statements in the course of the judicial proceedings either oral or in writing, that the Court shall direct a prosecution against those persons immediately thereafter. ( 5 ) THE civil revision petition accordingly succeeds and stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .