IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.109 of 2011 Ram Kishan Arora ……..Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant & Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent no.1. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4. Dated: 25th August, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) CLMA No.5912 of 2011 (Delay Condonation Application) Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, we allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Special Appeal No.109 of 2011 A judgment and order passed in another litigation stands in the way of what the appellant sought in the writ petition registered as Writ Petition no.593 of 2010 (S/S). It is the contention of the appellant that the order passed in the other litigation was obtained by fraud and since fraud vitiates everything, the said order does not stand in the way of the claim of the appellant. This contention has been rightly rejected by the learned Judge, who rendered judgment and order under appeal. It is true that fraud vitiates the product 2 of fraud, however, it is not permissible on the part of a litigant to contend that the judgment rendered in the litigation, in which he was a party, stands vitiated by fraud. At the best, he can go back to the Court, who has concluded the litigation by rendering the judgment, which is claimed to be vitiated by fraud, to declare that the same is so vitiated, otherwise there will be no sanctity of the judgments and orders rendered by the Courts of Law established. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to move the Court, which passed the final order in the said previous litigation, for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the order passed in the said litigation is a product of fraud. We allow the prayer and accordingly, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as above. ( V.K. Bist , J.) ( Bar in Gh osh , C.J.) 25.08.2011 25.08.2011 Arpan