A decree obtained by fraud can be nullified, but mere allegations without proof do not suffice; issues previously adjudicated cannot be re-litigated.

COMMON ORDER :

C.R.P.No.1013 of 2025 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 17.10.2005, in O.S.No.534 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Sub- Court, Erode, on the ground that the judgment in the present suit is not in conformity with Order XX Rules 4 and 5 CPC and the same cannot be construed as a valid judgment. C.R.P.No.2774 of 2024 has been filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order of the Sub-Court, Avinashi, dated 07.03.2023, in E.A.No.43 of 2019 in E.P.No.2 of 2017, dismissing the application under Section 47 CPC filed on the ground that the decree has been obtained by playing fraud. Both these revisions are filed by the 2^nd defendant in the suit.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3.Brief background of the case is as follows :

The suit in O.S.No.534 of 2000 has been originally filed by D.Rajalakshmi, for specific performance to enforce the sale agreement dated 19.01.2000 entered into between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant in respect of the suit property. The said suit was originally decreed ex parte on 31.10.2003. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant alone filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and the ex parte decree was set aside on 03.08.2005. However, again, the suit was decreed ex parte by judgment and decree dated 17.10.2005. Thereafter, the 2^nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.269 of 2006 to condone the delay of 772 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree in the suit, which was dismissed by the trial Court by a detailed order dated 29.01.2007. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.56 of 2006, pursuant to which, sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff through Court on 29.03.2007. The plaintiff filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.166 of 2007 for delivery of possession. The said Execution Petition, after various transfers, was renumbered as E.P.No.2 of 2017 on the file of Sub- Court, Avinashi. Thereafter, delivery was ordered in E.P.No.2 of 2017 on 22.01.2019. Now, the 2^nd defendant/2^nd judgment debtor has filed the present application under Section 47 CPC in E.A.No.43 of 2019 in E.P.No.2 of 2017. It is the contention of the 2^nd defendant that the suit property does not absolutely belong to the 1^st defendant, but also belongs to his son. According to him, he is the lawful owner of the property who has purchased the property from the 1^st defendant and his minor son based on a sale agreement executed in his favour on 25.08.1999 and sale deed registered on 26.07.2000. Therefore, the application has been taken out contending that the suit sale agreement was a forged one. The said application was dismissed by the Execution Court, challenging which, C.R.P.No.2774 of 2024 has been filed by the 2^nd defendant. The 2^nd defendant has also filed C.R.P.No.1013 of 2025 to set aside the judgment and decree in the suit on the ground that it is not in conformity with Order XX Rules 4 and 5 CPC.

4.Though two revision petitions are filed, the main challenge is to the ex parte decree passed in the suit on 17.10.2005 on the ground that no reasons, whats