Judgment :- The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.25 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, have come forward with this Civil Revision petition, challenging the order dated 01.07.2004 made in I.A.No.493 of 2004 reviewing the order earlier passed in I.A.No.154 of 2003. The respondent is the 5th defendant in the said suit. 2. Originally, the suit in O.S.No.322 of 1987 was filed as against the 5th defendant. Later on, the defendants 6 to 8 were added in the year 1991. Subsequently, the respondent filed I.A.No.154 of 2003 under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C., seeking to implead the legal heirs of the defendants 6 and 7 alleging that both of them died on 27.02.2003. The said LR application was filed on 15.10.2003. 3. Subsequently, the 5th respondent filed I.A.No.493 of 2004 under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the Court to review the order dated 15.10.2003 on the ground that the 6th defendant died on 05.01.2001, the seventh defendant died on 15.10.2002 and by suppressing the same, I.A.No.154 of 2003 was filed alleging as if both of them died on 27.02.2003 and thus, the order imp leading the LR was obtained by playing fraud representing that the LR application was filed within 90 days from the date of death. The said I.A.No.493 of 2004 was allowed by the Lower Court the order dated 15.10.203 made in I.A.No.154 of 2003 was recalled and the I.A.No.154 of 2003 was dismissed. Challenging the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Thelearned counsel for the petitioners would raise three main objections, which are as follows:- a. Under Order 47 Rule 3 C.P.C, a review petition should be filed in the form of memorandum of an appeal. But in the given case, the said I.A., for review was not filed in the said form. b. The prayer made in the petition is beyond the scope of the power of review of the Court. c. If once an application seeking to implead the LR is allowed, it implies that the abatement of the suit is also set aside. 6. b. The prayer made in the petition is beyond the scope of the power of review of the Court. c. If once an application seeking to implead the LR is allowed, it implies that the abatement of the suit is also set aside. 6. In support of the third contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and others v.Annabai Devram Kini and others reported in [2004 2 LW 366 SC] and also another Judgement in Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & others v. Gobardhan Sao & others reported in 2002-2-L.W 417. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the application filed before the Lower Court was not in the form like a memorandum of an appeal, the same has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners and so, the first objection is to be rejected. In answer to the second objection, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is suppression of fact and fraud has been played on the Court which has changed the course of justice and so, there was nothing wrong to exercise the power under Section 114 by the Lower Court. In so far as the third objection is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if the petition seeking to implead LR is filed atleast within 60 days from the date of abatement, then it may be construed that the abatement is set aside by implication. But, in this case, since the LR application itself was filed with long delay, the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable. 8. I have considered the above rival contentions and also perused the records. 9. A perusal of the records would show that the order made in I.A.No.154 of 2003 came to be passed on the premise that the 6th and 7th defendants died on 27.02.2003. But, it is now brought to my notice that the 6th defendant died on 05.01.2001 and the 7th defendant died on 15.10.2002 and the LR application was filed only on 15.10.2002. But, it is now brought to my notice that the 6th defendant died on 05.01.2001 and the 7th defendant died on 15.10.2002 and the LR application was filed only on 15.10.2002. Even today, it is not the case of the petitioners that their statement made by way of affidavit before the Lower Court that the deceased/defendants 6&7 died on 27.02.2003 is correct. It is not their case that they have mentioned the wrong date of death by mistake. The consistent stand taken by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Lower Court and also before this Court would go a long way to establish that a fraud has been committed on the Lower Court by the petitioners. When that is the only irresistible conclusion, which could be arrived at by this Court, then it becomes the duty of this Court to set right case in right track so as to achieve substantial justice to the parties. 10. Of course, I.A.No.493 of 2004 was not filed in the required form and the order of the Lower Court may be beyond the review power of the Lower Court. But, having given a finding that the Original order dated 15.10.2003 came to be secured by playing fraud on the Court, there would be no difficulty for this Court to treat the I.A.No.493 of 2004 filed before the Lower Court as only a petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C., to recall the order obtained by fraud. 11. The Honble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu vs.Jagannath reported in 1994 1 SCC1 has held as follows:- "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 anothers loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the 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 the he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party". 12. In the same Judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has held in another paragraph, "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. 12. In the same Judgment, the Honble Supreme Court has held in another paragraph, "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. A person, whos case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a Judgment/decree – by the first Court or by the highest 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. 13. The view expressed by the Honble Supreme Court squarely applies to this case on hand also. Since the order dated 15.10.2003 made in I.A.No.154 of 2003 is a nullity, since the same was obtained by playing fraud on the Court, the same is to be necessarily set aside as rightly done by the Lower Court. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that it may be true that the 6th defendant died on 05.01.2001 and the 7th defendant died on 15.10.2002 and though a separate application was not filed seeking to set aside the abatement, the Order allowing the LR application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 will imply that the abatement has also been set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on the Judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Mithailal Dalsangar Singh and others v.Annabai Devram Kini and others reported in 2004(2) L.W 366, wherein, the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows;- "Once the suit has abated as a matter of law, though there may not have been passed on record a specific order dismissing the suit as abated, yet the legal representatives proposing to be brought on record or any other applicant proposing to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party on record would seek the setting aside of an abatement. A prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record, if allowed, would have the effect of setting aside the abatement as the relief of setting aside abatement though not asked for in so many words is in effect being actually asked for and is necessarily implied. Too technical or pedantic an approach in such cases is not called for". 15. Though the Honble Supreme Court in the Judgment, has held so, I am not in a position to apply the said principle to the facts of the case on hand, for the simple reason that in the reported case, by mistake and oversight, an application to set aside the abatement was omitted to be filed and only a petition to implead the LR alone was filed and it not a case where fraud was played on the Court. But, in the instant case, since it is my clear finding that fraud has been committed on the Court and since it has been repeatedly held by the Honble Supreme Court that an order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity in the eye of law, the order dated 15.10.2003 made in I.A.No.154 of 2003 is non-est in the eye of law. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry v.Govt Of A.P reported in [ 2007 4 SCC 221 ], has reiterated the law as follows;- "No Court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim". 16. In view of my finding that the order itself was obtained by playing fraud on the Court, there is no question of order of abatement getting set aside by implication. At this juncture, it has to be pointed out that in the reported case, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at least the LR application under Order 22 Rule 9 C.P.C was filed within a period of 60 days from the date of abatement and there was no question of delay. Therefore, the Honble Supreme Court was of the view that by allowing the LR application, it could be construed as setting aside the abatement by implication. Therefore, the Honble Supreme Court was of the view that by allowing the LR application, it could be construed as setting aside the abatement by implication. But, in the case on hand also, though the defendants 6&7 died on 05.01.2001 & 15.10.2002 respectively, the LR application came to be filed only in the year 2003 i.e., far beyond the period of limitation of 60 days, as provided under Article 121 of the Limitation Act. Since the order dated 15.10.2002 made in I.A.No.154 of 2003 itself is a nullity in the eye of law for the simple reason that since it was filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under Article 121 of the Limitation Act, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in this regard. 17. Though I am of the considered view that a fraud has been played on the Court nevertheless, this Court should not fail to render substantial justice to the parties. A fraud is a matter, which has to be seriously viewed for which the person responsible has to face the consequences. In view of the said view, in the instant case, I deem it necessary to impose appropriate costs on the petitioner for having committed the said fraud on the Court. While doing so, it is necessary to give appropriate relief to the petitioners to substantiate their case before the Lower Court. If the Order of the Lower Court is simply sustained, the substantial interest of the parties, which require appropriate adjudication may be defeated. 18. Under these circumstances, the following order is passed;- a. The order dated 01.07.2004 recalling the order-dated 15.10.2003 made in I.A.No.154 of 2003 is confirmed. b. That part of the order, dismissing the I.A.No.154 of 2003 by the Lower Court, is set aside and the said I.A.No.154 of 2003 is restored to the file of the Learned District Munsif, Thiruppatur, who shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to both the parties. c. The petitioner is given liberty to file separate application under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.C., for setting aside the abatement and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filling the I.A.No.154 of 2003. c. The petitioner is given liberty to file separate application under Order 22 rule 3 C.P.C., for setting aside the abatement and another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filling the I.A.No.154 of 2003. If the petitioners are so advised, these two applications shall be filed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Lower Court shall dispose of all the three Interlocutory Applications i.e., I.A.No.154 of 2003, and other two Interlocutory Applications, if filed by the petitioners, within a period of one month thereafter, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned. d. Thepetitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) as costs to the 5th defendant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the cost is not paid by the petitioners within the stipulated time, the Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.470 of 2005 shall stand automatically dismissed.