ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order dated 05.03.2024 in O.S.S.R.No.93 of 2024 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, Vikarabad District.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed the above suit for declaration of title and to declare her as pattadar and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2-31 guntas in Sy.No.1080/a1/2 and Ac.1-11 gts. in Sy.No.1081/e, total admeasuring Ac.4-02 gts. situated at Kodangal Village and Mandal, Vikarabad District, and consequently declare the final Decree dated 23.03.2002 passed in I.A.No.253 of 2018 in O.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal and the preliminary decree and judgment dated 30.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.14 of 2010 as null and void.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the trial Court raised office objection No.1 and returned the plaint on 01.02.2024, stating ‘Explain the Maintainability of the suit. Process fee not affixed on the deposit form’. After complying with the said objection, the petitioner resubmitted her plaint on 07.02.2024. On

07.02.2024, the trial Court raised office objection No.2 and returned the plaint stating, ‘Court fee insufficient, hence suit may be returned.’ The revision petitioner thereafter paid the requisite court fee after taking the notional value of the suit schedule property according to the trial court’s directions and the said objection was complied with and the plaint was resubmitted on 23.02.2024. After that, the trial Court raised office objection No.3 and returned the plaint on 29.02.2024 stating, ‘signature of plaintiff is not there in fair copy’. After complying with the said objection, the petitioner resubmitted her plaint on 02.03.2024. On

05.03.2024, the trial Court raised office objection No.4 and returned the plaint stating, ‘Explain the Maintainability of the suit’.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that he had orally explained to the bench with regard to the maintainability of the suit by relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors Vs Government of A.P. & Ors 1 , wherein, it was held as follows:

“It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and nonest in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502, Lord Denning observed:

“..In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 : JT 1996 (7) SC 135, referring to Lazarus Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, 1956 AC 336 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 : (1956) 2 WLR 888, this Court stated;

1 2007 (4) SCC 221

"The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 C.P.C., to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by Fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction…”

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the trial court raised various objections one after the other, and though the petitioner complied with all the objections by explaining the maintainability of the suit, the trial Court is dragging on the matter by repeatedly raising multipl