Fraud must involve suppression of a material fact that could affect the outcome of legal proceedings; mere claims of fraud are insufficient to warrant review of a judgment.

ORDER :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

The Review Petitioner herein is the 1^st respondent in W.P.(C) No.41651/2022 and the appellant in W.A.No.858/2023. The judgments in the said Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are sought to be reviewed by the instant proceedings, on the allegation of fraud having been perpetrated on the Court by suppression of a material fact.

2. As per the judgment dated 04.04.2023 in the Writ Petition, the 2^nd respondent therein, KINFRA, was directed to consider the petitioners' claim to execute a lease in favour of the 1^st petitioner therein. In the Writ Appeal, we made a minimal modification to the judgment enabling the Review Petitioner herein (1^st respondent in the Writ Petition) an opportunity of being heard, while considering the petitioners' claim as directed by the learned Single Judge. The fact allegedly suppressed is the existence of an interim Order of status quo in a commercial suit, C.S.No.18/2021, instituted by the Review Petitioner herein inter alia for dissolution of partnership, settlement of accounts etc.

3. This Review Petition was moved unaccompanied by an application to condone the delay, on the premise that, where a judgment is vitiated by fraud, the same can be challenged at any point of time, without there being a necessity to condone the delay. However, the Review Petitioner subsequently chose to file C.M.Application No.1/2025 seeking to condone the delay of 878 days.

4. Heard Sri. P.C.Thomas, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner; Sri. K.A.Salil Narayanan, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. P.V.Shailajan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find no reason, either to condone the delay, or for that matter, to review the judgment in question, for the reasons elaborated here below:

6. The first point - Condonation of delay:-

Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner is right in contending that there is no necessity in law to condone the delay, if the Court finds that the judgment sought to be reviewed is obtained by fraud, by suppressing a material fact. However, for the reasons to be unfurled herebelow while dealing with the second point, we find no suppression of any material fact, much less any fraud, so as to entertain the Review Petition, without condoning the delay. 

7. Coming to C.M.Application No.1/2025, the solitary cause espoused for condonation of delay is an averment in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit that the petitioner could not file the Review Petition within the prescribed period due to various reasons, beyond her control. Needless to say that, the said averment can hardly constitute any sufficient cause to condone a whopping delay of 878 days. The fact that the Review Petitioner was aware of the so called suppression; that she did not choose to rake up that issue while filing the Writ Appeal; that she had attorned and acquiesced to the directions contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed (about which aspects, detailed reference will be made while dealing with the second point) also dissuade us from condoning the delay of 878 days. The C.M.Application will therefore stand dismissed.

8. Though we are not bound to look into the merits of the matter, inasmuch as the delay is not condoned, we deem it proper to consider the allegation of fraud alleged in the Review Petition, for, a finding in that regard in favour of the Review Petitioner may possibly tilt the balance, rendering the delay inconsequential.

9. The second point – Fraud, by suppression of material fact:-

The impact of fraud, if any, on a judgmen