A judgment or decree obtained by fraud or deliberate suppression of material facts is a nullity in law and can be challenged at any time, as fraud vitiates all judicial acts regardless of the delay in filing the challenge.

ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

The present revision has been filed challenging the judgement dated 19.05.2004 passed by the MP State Waqf Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No.800/1995, whereby the suit of the present respondent/ plaintiff has been decreed and declaration has been granted in respect of title of the respondent/plaintiff in Survey No.1348 area 0.437 hectare and Survey No.1358/1 area 0.405 hectare to be of the title and ownership of the plaintiff and further permanent injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff and mandatory injunction issued to demolish the construction raised by the State Government in the suit land. Admittedly, the State Government has constructed Sub-Jail at Sihora, District Jabalpur on some part of the suit land.

2. While reserving the case, this Court had heard the matter on the application for condonation of delay I.A. No.3195/2016 as well as on merits on 01.12.2025.

3. The brief facts for the purpose of present petition are that a suit was filed on 14.11.1986 before the Civil Court and the District Judge transferred the suit for disposal to the II Additional District Judge, Jabalpur and the suit remained pending before the District Court up to it being transferred to M.P. State Waqf Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short) by order dated 08.02.1995 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Jabalpur.

4. The suit had been filed by the respondent – Anjuman Islamiya Trust, Jabalpur in respect of land situated at Survey Nos.1348 and 1358/1 area 0.437 and 0.405 hectare respectively situated at Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur for declaration and injunction. It was contended that the State authorities are trying to interfere in possession of the plaintiff in the suit land and are trying to raise construction of Sub Jail at Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur. The suit was transferred by the District Court to M.P. State Waqf Tribunal vide order dated 08.02.1995 and the Tribunal took up the said suit thereafter and the suit has been decreed by ex parte judgement dated 19.05.2004 passed by the Tribunal in Case No.800/1995, which is under challenge.

5. The challenge to the aforesaid judgement is made on the sole basis that it is a judgement obtained by way of fraud by suppressing material facts from the Court and a judgement obtained by fraud is nullity and once the judgement is nullity, then notwithstanding the position that there has been a long delay of as many as 12 years in challenging the said judgement but since it is a judgement based on fraud by suppression of material facts, therefore, the delay is inconsequential and once Sub-Jail has been constructed on the suit land, therefore, valuable rights of the State are involved in the matter because a mandatory injunction has been granted to demolish the Sub Jail. It is further argued that the State never authorised any Advocate to appear before the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal and there was a fraud with the State Government not only in that manner but also in the manner that the events occurring during pendency of the suit in the year 1988 was suppressed from the Tribunal and a decree was obtained by suppression of material facts.

6. The sole contention of the State is that during pendency of the suit, proceedings were carried out for exchange of the land and the land in Survey No.1348 was exchanged with equal area of land in Survey No.1358/2 and that exchange was permitted by the Additional Collector, Katni (which was then a part of District Jabalpur) vide his order dated 30.06.1988 and this material development of exchange of land taking place during pendency of the suit was not brought on record before the trial Court or before the Tribunal and, therefore, the decree has been obtained by fraud and suppression.

7. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that since there is a huge delay, no interference and indulgence needs to be made in the matter by this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the p