The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of the law, and the doctrine of merger applies to appellate decisions.

1. This review application is filed by the applicant/first respondent after invoking the provisions under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to review the order of this Court, dated 28.1.2014 and made in C.R.P.(P.D.)No.3632 of 2013 on the file of this Court.

2. The review applicant herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.14192 of 2010 on the file of the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, whereas the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the defendants 1 and 2.

3. The review applicant had filed the above suit as against the respondents seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the entire rent control proceedings initiated by the first respondent/D1 seeking the eviction of the review applicant/plaintiff in R.C.O.P.No.2107 of 2000 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, followed by R.C.A.No.582 of 2005 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which is culminated into filing of E.P.No.599 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, and the orders and decretal orders made in those proceedings are vitiated by fraud and amounting to void, non-est and unenforceable and to grant mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to restore the possession of the suit property and also seeking the relief of declaration to declare that the review applicant/plaintiff is a tenant of the land alone and consequently, declare that she is entitled for the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and also for permanent injunction.

4. It is apparent that along with the above suit, she had also filed an application in I.A.No.22245 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. seeking the relief of temporary injunction as against the respondents 1 and 2. That petition was allowed granting temporary injunction, against which the first respondent/D1 had preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.74 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. That appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the court below.

5. Having been aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 24.7.2013 and made in the above said civil miscellaneous appeal, the first respondent/D1 had preferred a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.3632 of 2013.

6. After hearing both sides, this Court has proceeded to allow the revision petition on 28.1.2014 after setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 24.7.2013 and made in C.M.A.No.74 of 2013 and the order, dated 17.4.2013 and made in I.A.No.22245 of 2010 and dismissing the application in I.A.No.22245 of 2010 with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.14192 of 2010 on merit, purely on question of law as well as on the ground of maintainability, within a period of two months.

7. Now, the order, dated 28.1.2014 is sought to be reviewed in this review application.

8. Heard Mr. V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for Mr. M. Anbalagan, who is on record for the review applicant and Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

9. Despite service of notice on the second respondent, he has not chosen to appear.

10. Mr.V. Ayyadurai, has advanced his arguments on the following four grounds:-

(a) This court has not adverted to the main ground on which the suit was framed and the relief sought for was to declare that the entire Rent Control Proceedings initiated by the first respondent/revision petitioner are vitiated by fraud.

(b) The non consideration of the vital factor resulted in making those unwarranted observations would constitute, "error apparent" within the meaning of Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and consequently, the interest of justice requires to expunge such of those observations made in regard to the main suit.

(c) The reasoning, finding and conclusion that explanation VIII to Section 11 is made applicable to the present suit is error apparent on the face of record in the light of the fact that the