ISRAEL Vs. G ARUNADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Pratap Narayana Sanghi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri M. S. Ramchandra Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) THE present civil revision petition is filed as against an order made in I. A. (SR) No. 1598/2008 in O. S. No. 1540/1994 on the file of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The revision petitioner being aggrieved of the return of the application without numbering the said application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the decree in O. S. No. 1540/94 dated 5. 10. 1994 having been obtained by the respondents - plaintiffs by playing fraud on the defendant, had preferred the present C. R. P.

(3.) PER contra, Sri M. S. Ramchandra Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the reasons which had been recorded by the learned VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and further the learned Counsel would contend that even if the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application to be taken as they are, since no counter-affidavit as such had been filed, since the same was returned at the un-numbered stage, at the best, it may be a case of fraud played against a party and not as against the Court and hence the remedy of filing an application under Section 151 of the Code is a misconceived remedy. The Counsel also would further submit that even otherwise several allegations were made as against one P. Anil Kumar, who is a non-party to the present litigation O. S. No. 1540/94. Even in this view of the matter, the remedy if any available to the revision petitioner may be elsewhere but not by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also demonstrated how all the events were within the knowledge of the revision petitioner and how with a mala fide intention the revision petitioner thought of this application and made an attempt to defeat the realization of the fruits of the decree. The Counsel would contend that this would go to show that this application is not a bona fide one. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.