Judgment 1. The Court is intimated that the suit had been filed in a representative capacity by the Secretary of Magadh Raj Jarasandh Akhara, Rajgir. This was a testamentary suit no. 67 of 1990 for declaration of title and possession in respect to the properties mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit was decreed in part on the basis of a compromise and in part on contest against defendants 1 and 6. 3. Now the other defendants have appeared and desired to submit their case. If a joint written statement had been filed which represented the case of defendants 1 and 6 also then there is no occasion for the executing court to set aside the decree may be part was on contest and part was on the basis of a compromise. 4. If the contention of the defendants 1 and 6 is to the effect that the decree was obtained by fraud and collusion, then, this matter need be pleaded by facts and circumstances so as to take a declaration under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, 1872. This step was not taken. Suffice it to say that if there be a fraud it is a criminal act and there is no limitation if such action is to be taken by a party to the Suit. 5. Thus, at present the order dated 20th February, 2003 in Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 1998: Mahesh Yadav & Ors. vs. Rajeshwar Singh & Ors. permitting setting aside an ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is set aside. 6. The revision succeeds.