Fraud on the Court vitiates every solemn act and cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.

( 1 ) THE instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition bearing W. P. No. 6655 (W) of 2007. The said writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein without impleading the appellant as party respondent. Upon obtaining specific leave of this Court, instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein.

( 2 ) ASSAILING the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the aforesaid writ petition was filed by the writ petitioners in collusion with the other respondents on suppression of the material facts and upon practising fraud upon the Court with an intention to remove the 'khatal' of the appellant herein.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel of the appellant submits that the writ petitioners as well as the other respondents including the Chairman, Bhatpara Municipality and the respondent No. 6 herein were all along aware that the appellant herein had been running the Khatal in question at the concerned premises but with a mala fide intention and ill motive, the writ petitioners alleged in the writ petition that the Khatal belonged to Akhtar Hussain, namely the respondent No. 6 herein who purchased the premises in question in the month of December, 2003 and desperately trying to evict the appellant from the said premises.

( 4 ) MR. Alok Ghosh, the learned Counsel of the appellant further submits that Akhtar Hussain, respondent No. 6 herein engineered the entire process and deliberately did not appear before the learned Single Judge in order to withhold the material facts from this Hon'ble Court. According to the learned counsel of the appellant, the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was deliberately kept in dark by the writ petitioners and the private respondents in respect of the real facts in order to ensure removal of the Khatal of the appellant surreptitiously and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the said appellant. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the entire premises in question was being used by the said appellant as Khatal-cum-residence.

( 5 ) THE case made out by the appellant, in short, is that his father started running of the Khatal from, the premises in question since 1951 upon obtaining necessary licence from the Municipal authority. The description of the holding was also recorded in the Municipal Assessment Register as Khatal. After the death of the father, the appellant had been running the said Khatal upon obtaining due licence from the Municipality. The Municipality granted licence upto the year 2002-03 but thereafter, withheld granting of such licence in spite of submission of necessary application upon depositing the requisite charges.

( 6 ) IT has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that a suit was filed by the said appellant in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)at Barrackpore being Title Suit No. 199 of 2003 and the said learned Civil judge upon considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from creating hindrance and disturbance in the peaceful possession of the appellant herein over the suit property. The learned Counsel of the appellant further submits that the learned Civil Court ultimately disposed of the said injunction application filed by the appellant herein on 11th February, 2004 with the direction upon the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit.

( 7 ) IT is the case of the appellant herein that the respondent No. 6. Akhtar hussain purchased the aforesaid holding after filing of the aforesaid title suit by the appellant herein and the said Akhtar Hussain was, therefore, subsequently added as the defendant in the said suit. According to the appellant, the said Akhtar Hussain has been contesting the said suit and is f