IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2141 of 2007 Raghunandan Thakur, son of late Raj Narayan Thakur, resident of Village-Lalu Chapra, P.O. Lalu Chapra, P.S. Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur ----- Defendant-----Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt.Shailbala Shahi, wife of Sri Anand Bhairav Shahi 2. Vishwamurti Shahi 3. Ashutosh Shahi, both sons of Anand Bharav Shahi, all 1 to 3 are residents of Village-Manikpur, P.O. Saraiya Factory, P.S. Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur ---- Plaintiffs ---- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 8. 18.10.2011 Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the petitioner. The defendant of Title Suit No. 62 of 2000 ( Shailwala Shahi & Ors.Vs. Raghunandan Thakur), has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and assails the validity of the order dated 20.8.2007, passed by the learned Sub-Judge 5th, Muzaffarpur, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the defendant as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the issues raised herein are concluded by the judgment and decree in an earlier suit, has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Sub-Judge IInd, Muzaffarpur, had 2 disposed of Title Suit No. 87 of 1975, by compromise decree dated 17.5.1976. The instant suit has been instituted for declaration that the judgment and decree in Title Suit no.87 of 1975 was obtained by fraud. The defendant (the petitioner herein) raised a preliminary objection before the learned Sub-Judge V, Muzaffarpur, that the present suit is not maintainable because the issues are concluded by the previous judgment in Title Suit No.87 of 1975. The prayer has been rejected with the observation that the plaintiff can maintain a suit for setting aside the judgment and decree obtained by fraud. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant suit is not maintainable having been concluded by the judgment in the previous suit. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) Mostt. Radhika Devi Vs. Ramdeo Tiwary and others, 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 534. (ii) Guru Charan Singh & others Vs. Mahatam Singh & another, 2006(3) P.L.J.R. 345. It appears to me that the present suit is maintainable. Law is well settled that fraud unravels everything. The following observations of the court of 3 appeal in England in Lazarus Estates, Ltd V. Beasley, 1956(1) All England Law Reports, P. 341, is relevant in the present context: “If this argument is correct, the landlords would profit greatly from their fraud. The increase in rent would pay the fine many times over. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever; see, as to deeds, Collins V. Blantern (2) (1767) (2 Wils. K.B. 342), as to judgments, Duchess of Kingston’s Case (3) (1776) (1 Leach 146), and, as to contracts, Master v. Miller (4) (1791) (4 Tern Rep. 320). So here I am of opinion that, if this declaration is proved to have been false and fraudulent, it is a nullity and void and the landlords cannot recover any increase of rent by virtue of it.” 4. We entirely agree with the impugned order that the suit could not have been dismissed at the threshold, and the suit has to be tried. The learned trial court shall take care to frame an issue to the effect whether or not the present suit is maintainable, and whether or not it is concluded by the judgment and decree in Title Suit no.87 of 1975. 4 5. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)