A judgment obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law, and litigants must come to court with clean hands.

S.S. Nijjar, J. - Yesterday, the matter was heard at length. I was, prima facie, satisfied that the application for review filed before the Learned Rent Controller seeking setting aside order dated 18.08.2001 was not filed in accordance with law.

2. I have now gone through the entire paper book. A perusal of the order dated 18.8.2001 shows that the revision petitioner concealed the order passed by the Appellate Authority staying further proceedings in the execution. The Learned Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on 17.4.2001. The respondent filed appeal against the aforesaid order on 15.5.2001. On 16.5.2001, the Appellate Authority stayed the execution proceedings, issued notice in the application for condonation of delay and the appeal for 11.06.2001. On that date, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner appeared in the Appellate Court and the matter was adjourned to 21.8.2001 and the order of stay granted on 16.5.2001 had been extended till 21.08.2001. Yet the revision petitioner filed an application for warrants of possession on 17.11.2001. In this application, it was no where mentioned that the Appellate Authority has already stayed the execution proceedings. Thus by concealing material facts, the warrants of possession were got issued on 28.7.2001. Thereafter, the possession was taken forcibly on 14.08.2001. Consequently, the respondent was constrained to file an application on 16.8.2001 bringing the aforesaid facts to the notice of the execution court. This application was allowed by a detailed order passed on 18.08.2001. In the meantime, the stay matter pending in the appeal also came to be decided on 30.8.2001 by the Appellate Authority. On that date, the Court observed that "the mere fact that the appeal has been filed after some delay, is no ground to refuse stay in case, the facts and circumstances justify the same, especially when an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is yet to be decided on merits." The Appellate Authority further ordered that eviction order shall be stayed subject to deposit of arrears of rent in the Court of learned Rent Controller by the next date. It may also be noticed, at this stage that the order dated 18.8.2001 restoring the possession to the respondent has been challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 4381 of 2001. It is a matter of record that no interim relief has been granted in the aforesaid Civil Revision. Faced with this situation, the revision petitioner adopted a novel course and sought recall of the very same order before the Learned Rent Controller. This application has been dismissed by order dated 01.02.2002. Hence, the present revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Rawal at length, I have also perused the entire paper book and all the orders with great care. A perusal of the facts narrated above, clearly indicates that the revision petitioner has not been candid with this Court. He has, in fact, also not been candid with the executing Court. The orders of stay passed by the Learned Appellate Court were not brought to the notice of the executing Court while seeking issuance of warrants of possession. By misrepresentation and suppression of material facts the petitioner had obtained warrant of possession of the demised premises. Actual physical possession was taken on 14.08.2001 in execution of the warrant of possession. In such circumstances, this revision petition is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., and others, (1995-1)109 PLR 293. In the aforesaid case, Kuldip Singh, J. speaking for the Court, observed as follows :

"Fraudavoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a jud