S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present application under Article 227 of the constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2003 passed by the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in MAA No. 1691 of 2001. ( 2 ) GRIEVANCES of the petitioner/the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the KMC' may briefly be stated as follows : (I) Opposite Party No. 1 is an assessee under the petitioner authority in respect of the premises No. 29a, Ballygunge Park Road, (Ward No. 65) Kolkata-700019. (II) Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Revenue HQ) by order dated 15. 11. 1999 fixed the annual valuation of the said premises at Rs. 4,28,580/- with effect from 1/1999-2000. Opposite Party No. 1 preferred an appeal against the said order, being MAA No. 1691 of 2001. In the memorandum of appeal the same was described as 29a, Ballygunge Place though in the municipal records, it was rightly recorded as 29a, Ballygunge Park. The Municipal Assessment tribunal by order dated 25th June, 2003 fixed the annual valuation of the premises No. 29a Ballygunge Park, (Ward No. 65) at Rs. 1,30,740/- with effect from 1/1999-2000. (III) Opposite Party No. 1 thereafter filed an application under Rule 24 of the KMC (Taxation) Rules, 1987 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure code seeking amendment of the premises No. as recorded in the judgment. It was stated therein that due to inadvertence premises No. 29a, Ballygunge park had been shown as 29a, Ballygunge Place though Ward No. and postal code remained the same. (IV) The Tribunal by order No. 13 dated 21. 07. 2003 allowed the said amendment application dated 30th June, 2003 treating the same as the review application and directed correction of the original judgment and its certified copy as well as the memorandum of appeal. ( 3 ) PETITIONER by filing the present application under Article 227 of the constitution has prayed for setting aside of the said order dated 21st July, 2003. ( 4 ) THE first contention of Mr. Das Adhikary, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal had no authority neither under the KMC Act, 1980 nor under the KMC (Taxation) Rules, 1987, to review its earlier order by allowing the amendment petition in the manner sought for. There could be no question of amendment of the memorandum of appeal under Rule 24 of the said rules. There could be no question of amendment of the memorandum of appeal under Rule 24 of the said rules. The Tribunal subscribed to the mala fide motive of the appellant/o. P. No. 1 herein and the order under challenge suffers from irregularity as well as jurisdictional error. ( 5 ) O. P. No. 1, however, has contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition wherein the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It is stated that the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Rule 24, Rule 26 and Rule 30 of the said KMC (Taxation) Rules, 1987 has the power to allow such amendment thereby correcting its orders. ( 6 ) THE crux of the present controversy is whether the Tribunal has such power to allow amendment in the manner as sought for. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the premises in question as originally described in the memorandum of appeal is 29a, Ballygunge Place and not 29a, Ballygunge park. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Tribunal dealt with premises No. 29a, Ballygunge Place as it would appear from the geographical position. It is contended that description of the premises in the memorandum of appeal could not be said to be a mistake which could be rectified under Rule 24 or for that matter, under any other rule. It is urged that O. P. No. 1 by seeking such rectification practised fraud. ( 9 ) REFERRING to the decision in the case of Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Ors. , reported in 2003 (8) SCC 311 , it has been contended that "fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud. " ( 10 ) THE Apex Court while holding the same relied upon the decision in the case of Derry vs. Peek, 1889 (14) SC 337. ( 11 ) TRUE, "the Court is not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever. " (Ref: 1956 (3) All England Reporter 341. ( 11 ) TRUE, "the Court is not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever. " (Ref: 1956 (3) All England Reporter 341. ( 12 ) DRAWING attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Ram Chandra singh vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. , 2003 (8) SCC 319 , it has been argued that fraud and justice never dwell together. According to Mr. Das Adhikary, learned advocate for the petitioner, such impugned order is an abuse of the process of court and in this context he has referred to the decision in the case of Orissa state Financial Corporation and Anr. vs. Hotel Jogendra, reported 1996 (5) SCC 357 . ( 13 ) ON the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 that though urged on behalf of the petitioner, it could not be said that the Tribunal by allowing amendment illegally made time-barred appeal as within time decisions as referred to in this regard, however, do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 14 ) THE rules under "the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987", which have been relied upon by learned Counsel for 0. P. No. 1 may now be considered :"rule 24. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or orders or patent errors or omissions therein may be corrected by the Chairman. Rule 26. Amendment of orders, and making of orders for ends of justice. The Tribunal may, on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit, (a) amend any defect or error in any order or proceeding in an appeal, or (b) make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal. Rule 30. Residuary provision. In any matter not provided for in these rules, the Chairman may, if occasions require, adopt for the time being such procedure, not repugnant to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as he deems fit and proper. " ( 15 ) IN the present case, it appears from the judgment which was later reviewed that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the premises in question was 29a, Ballygunge Place. The geographical position and other detailed description left little scope for doubt. " ( 15 ) IN the present case, it appears from the judgment which was later reviewed that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the premises in question was 29a, Ballygunge Place. The geographical position and other detailed description left little scope for doubt. Thereafter, to approach the Tribunal with a prayer for amendment of the most important aspect i. e. , the annual valuation of the actual premises is nothing but an attempt to practise fraud. It is not understood as to how could it be said to be an amendment of formal nature. And, certainly there could be no rule authorising the Tribunal to allow amendment of the memorandum of appeal and along with it the earlier order fixing the valuation of the property. By no stretch of imagination it could be said to be a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It was conscious act on the part of opposite Party No. 1 and the Tribunal allowed itself to be trapped within it. This, no doubt, resulted in abuse of the process of Court and miscarriage of justice. ( 16 ) THE manner in which the Tribunal acted cannot be appreciated at all. Interest of justice demands more vigilance and alertness on the part of the justice delivery system. ( 17 ) HAVING regard to all such facts and materials, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order is illegal and it suffers from jurisdictional error. It undoubtedly resulted in miscarriage of justice. This Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot afford to remain a passive onlooker to this. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated 25th June, 2003 passed by the municipal Assessment Tribunal in MAA No. 1691 of 2001 is set aside. ( 19 ) OPPOSITE Party No. 1, however, be given liberty to prefer a fresh appeal, if it so desires, in respect of annual valuation of premises No. 29a, Ballygunge park and if such appeal is filed, the Tribunal will dispose of the same strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. ( 20 ) THERE is no order as to costs. ( 21 ) XEROX certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on payment of requisite fees. Appeal disposed of.