A decree obtained by fraud is an "injury" within the meaning of R.2 of O.39 C.P.C., and in appropriate cases an injunction may issue to restrain execution thereof.

The revisionists in this Court are aggrieved by the order of interim injunction passed in a suit filed by the respondents. The respondents, in their suit, impugned the decree obtained by the revisionists in Civil Suit No. 27 of 1963, passed by the Subordinate Judge II, Manipur, which was finally affirmed by this Court and it is submitted that the Supreme Court also affirmed this Courts decision. The revisionists complain that though they were impleaded, according to the plaintiffs, as defendants 1 to 7, they were not described properly. Because, in the decree obtained by them they were described in a different manner. Accordingly, they did not enter appearance in the suit, but they filed an application to be added as a party in the injunction proceedings and the prayer was accepted and they were accordingly impleaded therein and heard.

2. The plaintiffs case, in short, is that the revisionists had obtained the decree by practising fraud on the Court and by not impleading them therein and the said decree was not, therefore, binding on the plaintiffs. By the impugned decree, the revisionists obtained the declaration that they were Shebaits of the deity Gopinath and they had the right to worship the deity and to manage its property to the exclusion of the defendants. They founded their right to Shebaitship on the allegation that they were lineal descendants of late Maharajah Bheigyachandra through his son Kirtidhaja and that the deity Gopinath was given to their ancestor Kirtidhaja for worship by the late Maharajah. Plaintiff 1 claimed to be a Piba or Head of the ruling clan of Pukhrambam of Ningthoukhong and as such he was the chief Shebait/ Manager of the deity Gopinath being the lineal descendant of Kirtidhaja. The particulars of fraud stated in the plaint and summed up by the trial Court are as follows:

"1) That they falsely set up in their aforesaid suit that Kirtidhaja was the son of Bhagya Chandra alias Karta Maharaja of Manipur, and that the formers mother Kishori was a Rani and wife of the said Maharaja, by suppressing the fact that Kishori alias Keshori was the wife of Desraj who was only a follower of the Maharaj and that Kirtidhwaja was the very son of Desraj;

2) That they falsely claimed to be the male lineal descendants of Kirtidhwaja through Samusana alias Rudra, by suppressing the fact that Rudra whose real alias names were Samuphaba or Samuyaima was the son of Pukhrambam Brindaban, son of Pukhrambam Kabi, who were subject of Ningthou or Chief of Ningthoukhong;

3) That these defendants falsely asserted that they and their forefathers in their lifetime have been successively in possession, custody and management of the Deity Gopinath and its Debutter properties, and they used to assume direct management of those properties sometimes to appoint managers/shebaits for management thereof, by suppressing the fact that they were never in such possession, custody and management and the plaintiff 1 assisted by his clan brotherhood has been in such possession, custody and management,"

The plaintiff further alleged that the revisionists threatened to forcibly remove plaintiff 1 from the management of the deity and its affairs. The plaintiffs came to know about the decree obtained by them when the revisionists levied execution thereof. The plaintiff claimed that they had the right to retain custody of the idol and manage its property and if the plaintiff No. 1 was removed from his office as head of the clan and Shebait of the idol, the plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable injury.

3. In the said suit, an application was filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and in support of the application, plaintiff 1 filed an affidavit in support of the case made out in the plaint. In the course of hearing, 42 documents which the plaintiff filed in support of their case and also two printed books of the historical importance having a bearing on the subject-matter of dispute were also filed and relied on. The books placed befo