RSA 360 of 1995 29.7.2009 Present: Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Baldev Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. CMP No. 589 of 2009 By judgment dated 1st January, 2009, this Court had allowed the appeal in the following terms:- “This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, appeallants herein, against the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court granting damages instead of a decree for specific performance, as prayed for. Without entering into the legality of the question of law urged for determination, this appeal can be disposed of in view of the averments made in CMP No. 711 of 2008, which is an application under Order 41 Rue 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicant for placing on record the sale deed of the suit land which is subject matter of the suit. The application is accompanied by a photocopy of the sale deed. In view of these changed circumstances, this appeal is allowed. No stay was granted against the execution of the sale deed, when the appeal was admitted. In these circumstances, registered sale deed, photocopy of which is marked as Ext.C-1, having been voluntarily executed disposes of the entire controversy between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he may be permitted to take instructions in the matter. This request is declined at this stage as ample notice of the facts had been given to the respondents. The application was filed on 19.8.2008 with an advance copy to the respondent. Liberty has been reserved to the defendant to approach this Court in case it is urged by him that the sale deed Ext.C-1 has not been voluntarily executed. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is modified to this extent.” The respondents have now approached this Court by way of present Civil Miscellaneous Petition alleging that deed Ext.C-1 is the result of fraud. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a number of grounds in this application in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 alleging fraud in the execution of the sale deed and consequences of the appeal being allowed. It is trite to observe that fraud vitiates all transactions as held by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jaganath, (1994) 1 SCC Page 1 that “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree-by the first court or by the highest court-has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.” If the instrument Ext.C-1 is the result of fraud, it will be open to the applicants-respondents to file a fresh suit alleging the grounds of fraud to show and demonstrate to the Court that deed Ext.C-1 was infact obtained by exercise of fraud. It will be open to the parties to take all such pleas in the matter as may be permissible under law. This application is accordingly disposed of. Such suit if filed shall be tried independently irrespective of the judgment passed in appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. July 29, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge