JETRUTH MANICKAM Vs. MARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by rejection of Unnumbered Application in I.A.Nil/2007 in O.S.No.181/2005 on the file of District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, the Petitioner/Defendant has filed this Revision.

(2.) THE Respondents/Plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.181/2005 for declaration that Document No.553/1985 is void and for permanent injunction. By the Judgment and Decree dated 14.07.2006, the suit was decreed granting declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for by the Respondents/Plaintiffs.

(3.) FROM the records, it appears that Suit O.S.No.181/2005 was disposed of after full trial. The grievance of the Petitioner/Defendant is that the Judgment and Decree was obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. If the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court, it is always open to the Petitioner/Defendant to challenge the same in the manner known to law by initiating separate proceedings and seeking for cancellation of the Judgment and Decree or for a declaration that the Decree was obtained by fraud. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court could be invoked only if there is no substantive provisions to seek the relief.