JUDGMENT :- The defendants in Declaratory Suit No.91 of 1951 of the Sub Judges Court has filed this appeal against the decree dated 6-10-52 passed against them by the above said court in favour of the plaintiff respondent holding that the order dated 10-10-49 passed by His Highness the Maharaja of Manipur in Civil Review case No.1 of 1948-49 is null and void. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff Bokul Singh filed different suits for recovery of Rs.10,000/- against the defendants (now appellants) in the Chief Court on the original side which were heard jointly and decreed on 7-5-46. Against this decree, an appeal was filed by the defendants on- 6-6-46 (about one year after although the prescribed period for filing the appeal as provided by law prevailing at that time was 30 days) with His Highness which was rejected on 5-4-48. The decree passed by the Chief Court was thus confirmed. After that the defendant filed an application for reviewing the above judgment and decree, to His Highness on 7-7-48 on which records were called. It was then on 10-10-49 i.e., more than 2 years and 3 months after when the review application was allowed with the result that the appeal was accepted and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. This was done behind the back of the plaintiff respondent who was never called to say his say in the matter. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaring the said order dated 10-10-49 passed by His Highness the Maharaja in his review case No.1 of 1948-49 a nullity, which has been decreed. The present appeal is against this decree of the Sub-Judge. 3. It is admitted by the appellants counsel that the review petition was allowed by His Highness without hearing the other party i.e., the plaintiff to whom notice of the petition was never issued. He says that even the defendants-petitioners were not informed of the date of hearing. This argument does not improve their case at all. It is necessary that notice of application should be given to the opposite party before granting review application, otherwise the order granting renview will be a nullity. He says that even the defendants-petitioners were not informed of the date of hearing. This argument does not improve their case at all. It is necessary that notice of application should be given to the opposite party before granting review application, otherwise the order granting renview will be a nullity. This view is supported by Calcutta, Patna, Bombay, Lahore and Madras High Courts, as reported in - Abdul Hakim v. Hem Chandra Das, AIR 1915 Cal 666 (A); - Bajrangi Prasad v. Lal Bihari Singh, AIR 1933 Pat 643 (2) at p.644 (B); - Rupchand Khemchand v. Balvant Narayan, 11 Bom 591 at pp.594, 595 (C); - Taj Muhammad v. Kanshi Mal, 19 Ind Cas 364 (Lah) (D); - Rama Chandrayya v. Venkataratnam, AIR 1926 Mad 133 (2) (134) (E). Such an action by the Court viz.: granting a review petition behind the back of the opposite party is evidently against the principle of natural justice. The order complained of has, therefore, been rightly declared a nullity by the learned Sub Judge. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that a decree passed by a superior court cannot be set aside without proof of fraud. That may be right. But there is nothing in the way of a court to declare a decree of a superior court a nullity. Reliance in this respect is placed by the respondents counsel on - Abdul Huq v. Abdul Hafiz, 14 Cal WN 695 at p.697 (F) and - Sarthakaran Maiti v. Nundo Ram Maiti, 11 Cal WN 579 at p.580 (G), in which it is held that "Decree of superior court can be declared a nullity though not set aside by an inferior court on ground of fraud." I am quite in agreement with this view. 5. Further consequential relief is implied in a suit by a party to a decree to declare it illegal and void : - Mt. Rup Rani v. Bithaldas, AIR 1938 Oudh 1 at p.7 (H); - Birendra Kumar v. Bansa Devi, 191 Ind Cas 413 at p.414 (Oudh) (I). Another point raised by the appellants counsel is that the suit is not sufficiently court-feed. Rup Rani v. Bithaldas, AIR 1938 Oudh 1 at p.7 (H); - Birendra Kumar v. Bansa Devi, 191 Ind Cas 413 at p.414 (Oudh) (I). Another point raised by the appellants counsel is that the suit is not sufficiently court-feed. The court-fee in this suit has been paid for declaration pure and simple i.e., Rs.10/- and that is enough when the suit is for mere declaration of the nullity of the decree and this relief comes within the purview of S.42, Specific Relief Act. The suit, therefore, does not suffer on account of insufficiency of court-fee. As a result, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Pleaders fee in this appeal to be assessed at Rs.25/-. Appeal dismissed.