JAI BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. ATTAR KALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT no. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 6.5.2010 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 28.4.2011 passed by the lower appellate court thereby allowing application filed by respondent no. 1 -plaintiff for temporary injunction and thereby restraining the defendants (petitioner and proforma respondents no. 2 and 3) from alienating suit land till decision of the suit. Petitioner had filed an earlier suit against respondents no. 2 and 3. During pendency of the said suit, plaintiff -respondent no. 1 purchased suit land from respondents no. 2 and 3. The said suit was decreed ex -parte in favour of the present petitioner. Respondent no. 1 plaintiff by filing the instant suit has challenged the said decree on the basis of alleged fraud.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(3.) CONTENTION of counsel for respondent no. 1 -plaintiff that earlier decree can be challenged on the ground of fraud does not help the plaintiff at this stage. Suffice to observe that present petitioner did not commit any fraud with respondent no. 1 and if any fraud was committed, the same might be by respondent nos. 2 and 3 as vendors and predecessors -in -interest of respondent no. 1 by not disclosing pendency of the earlier suit filed by the petitioner. Consequently, alleged fraud cannot be said to have been committed by the petitioner.