( 1 ) URI Civil Contractor AB, defendant / Petitioner ( hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the petitioner, for the sake of convenience) through the present revision petition have taken exception to an order dated July 14,1992 passed by Shri Tej Singh kashyap. Sub Judge, Delhi, wherethrough he came to the conclusion that an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable to set aside the judgment and decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud and fixed a date for framing of issues in order to examine the factum of fraud and stayed the operation of the said judgment and decree and directed the parties to maintain the status quo in regard to the custody of the five vehicles.

( 2 ) THE matrix of the case of the petitioner is: that the plaintiff/ respondent (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) : brought forward a suit, being Suit No. 7 of 1992, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner. She prayed through the said suit that the petitioner be restrained from removing 23 vehicles from the workshop of the respondent till they made the payment for the work done by h