Kuldip Singh, J. ( 1 ) "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 nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment decree- by the first 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. [in paras 2 to 4, facts are detailed and decision of High Court is noted, which briefly are : One Chunilal sued appellants and obtained a decree and in execution his clerk (Jaganath) purchased property of appellants at Court auction. Jagan Nath relinquished his right in favour of Chunilal by a Regd. deed. Appellants paid decretal sum to D. H. Jagannath without disclosing release deed sued appellants for partition and obtained preliminary decree and when he applied for final decree, appellants came to know of release deed and prayed that preliminary decree was obtained by fraud. Trial Court agreed and dismissed application of Jaganath. Latter appealed to High Court which was allowed on the ground that Jaganath was not guilty of extrinsic fraud and Defts. could have defeated the suit by producing release deed and that Jagan Nath did not practice trickery or misleading. ] ( 3 ) HIGH Court further held : "from this decision it follows that except proceedings for probate and other proceedings where a duty is cast upon a party litigant to disclose all the facts, in all other cases, there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. It would cut at the root of the fundamental principle of law of finality of litigation enunciated in the maxim interest republicaent sit finis litium if it should be held that a judgment obtained by a plaintiff in a false case, false to his knowledge, could be set aside on the ground of fraud, in a subsequent litigation. " ( 4 ) FINALLY, High Court held ; "the principle of this decision governs the instant case. " ( 4 ) FINALLY, High Court held ; "the principle of this decision governs the instant case. At the worst the plaintiff is guilty of fraud in having falsely alleged, at the time when he filed the suit for partition, he had subsisting interest in the property though he had already executed Exhibit B-15. Even so, that would not amount to extrinsic fraud because that is a matter which could well have been traversed and established to be false by the appellant by adducing the necessary evidence. The preliminary decree in the partition suit necessarily involves an adjudication though impliedly that the plaintiff has a subsisting interest in the property. " ( 5 ) THE High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean- hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank- loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say (hat a person, who s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. ( 6 ) THE facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another s loss. It is cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was a clerk with Chunilal. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another s loss. It is cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was a clerk with Chunilal. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-35) in favour of Chunilal regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud against court as well as on the opposite party. Appeal allowed with costs Rs. 11,000. 00.