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.)