IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5022 of 2009 FAIZ MURTAZA ALI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 04. 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for intervention and seeking interim relief filed on 12.01.2007 is still pending. The decree sought to be executed in Execution Case No. 7/12 of 2006 had been obtained by fraud and therefore a nullity. The objection whether a judgment and decree had been obtained by a fraud or not is a question of fact and which can be first raised by a party to the suit, and by another if he is able to demonstrate prejudice thereby. At this stage, the contention of the petitioner that the decree was fraudulent is premature unless and until his application for intervention is first decided in accordance with law, where all matters shall have to be considered appropriately. Unfortunately, even the petitioner has not come forward with any statement of the steps taken by him for expediting his application after filing the same in the year 2007. Nonetheless, the Court consider it proper to 2 issue directions to the Executing Court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna to dispose off the petitioner’s application dated 12.1.2007 for intervention after hearing all concerned in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)