JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, H.P., whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.I, Amb, District Una. The defendants standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below concert, through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, to reverse the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit in representative capacity seeking a declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree of 9.12.1959 had been obtained by the defendants by playing a fraud on the Court and the residents of village Tiai, Tehsil Amb, District Una, having been obtained collusively and in connivance with Sant Ram the Ex-Sarpanch of the village and as such was a nullity in the eyes of law. The premises on which the suit was laid was Shamlat deh and the same stood vested in the Gram Panchayat Tiai by operation of law under the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Act No.1 of 1954 and mutation No. 113 had come to be sanctioned in this behalf on 18.6.1955 and since then the Shamlat was being managed by the Panchayat. The defendants had instituted a suit being Civil Suit No. 293/1959 against the Gram Panchayat Tiai seeking a declaration that land measuring 2860 Kanals and 17-1/2 marlas was owned and possessed by them. On 12.8.1959 the Gram Panchayat vide its resolution had resolved to contest the case and authorized Sant Ram to defend the case on behalf of the Panchayat. On 9.12.1959 Sant Ram Pardhan had made a statement in Court that the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed. In 1968 the defendants got the mutation in their name in pursuance to the judgment vide mutation No. 136 of 1968 and thereafter a civil suit No. 484 of 1969 titled as Gram Panchayat vs. Khoshala was filed challenging the aforesaid mutation. In the year 1972 Sarpanch Sant Ram again won the election and became the Sarpanch and again got a resolution passed on 9.3.1973 seeking to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969. The said suit was also dismissed as withdrawn on 23.3.1973. In the year 1972 Sarpanch Sant Ram again won the election and became the Sarpanch and again got a resolution passed on 9.3.1973 seeking to withdraw the Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969. The said suit was also dismissed as withdrawn on 23.3.1973. The present plaintiffs again in representative capacity filed suit alleging themselves to be beneficiary in the suit being Shamlat challenging the withdrawal of the suit. The matter went upto the Hon'ble High Court and in Regular Second Appeal No. 161 of 1987 Hon'ble High Court observed that as long as judgment and decree of 9.12.1959 is not challenged the plaintiffs could not succeed in getting any relief in the said suit out of which aforesaid RSA arose. The plaintiffs therein again filed review petition wherein the Hon'ble High Court had given liberty to avail the remedy of challenging the judgment and decree Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3. The plaintiffs herein, therefore, challenging the judgment and decree of 9.12.1959 have filed the present suit. 3. The defendants No.1 to 18 preferred a common written statement. They interalia raised the preliminary objections of locus standi, limitation, cause of action, maintainability, the suit being barred under the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC and the plaintiffs being estopped from bringing the suit in view of the earlier suit having been filed by them. 4. On merits, the defendants denied that any fraud was played or any mis statement of fact was ever made in the Court. It was denied that the defendants had colluded with Sant Ram the then Sarpanch. The plaintiffs were stated to be in full knowledge of the decision rendered in 1959. The suit land was stated to have never been vested either in the Gram Panchayat or in the State. As per the defendants the Gram Panchayat and the State did not claim any interest or title to the suit land. The plaintiffs were thus estopped from agitating the matter which is in the competence of Gram Panchayat or the State. The State of H.P. being defendant No.21 had preferred a separate written statement. As per the defendants the Gram Panchayat and the State did not claim any interest or title to the suit land. The plaintiffs were thus estopped from agitating the matter which is in the competence of Gram Panchayat or the State. The State of H.P. being defendant No.21 had preferred a separate written statement. As per the State the Shamlat lands vested in the Panchayat under the Act of 1961 and had come to be vested in the State of H.P. by virtue of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act and as such the earlier decree of the Court has no effect in operation of the H.P.Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1976. On merits it was the case of the State that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 293/59 had become a nullity in view of the Section 3 of the H.P.Act and the suit land had in fact been vested in the State of H.P. 5. Replication to the written statement stood filed wherein the averments made in the written statement were controverted and those made in the plaint were re-asserted. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether judgment and decree dated 9.12.1959 in Civil Suit No. 293 of 1959 is collusive, result of fraud and misrepresentation, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether suit land is Shamlat Deh in use of inhabitants of the village, Tiai? OPP. 3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed, OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether suit is bad for non mentioning of particulars of fraud as required under Order 6 Rule 2 CPC? OPD. 8. Whether suit is barred by principle of res judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. 10. Whether the plaintiffs have no title either proprietary or possessory in suit land? OPD. 11. Relief. 7. On appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs besides the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. 8. 10. Whether the plaintiffs have no title either proprietary or possessory in suit land? OPD. 11. Relief. 7. On appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs besides the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. 8. Now the defendants/appellants herein have instituted before this Court the instant Regular Second Appeal wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 30.11.2011, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether plaintiffs/respondents have failed to discharge the legal onus with regard to alleged fraud and mis representation of facts in the present case as they have not pleaded the same as per order 6 Rule 2 and 3 of CPC nor have proved the same according to law? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs was not abated as plaintiffs at Sr. No. 7, 8, 14, 16, 22 in the trial stage before the First Trial Court had been expired during the pendency of the suit itself and as no legal heirs had been brought on record by the plaintiffs/respondents within the time period as prescribed under law and matter as a whole had abated and suit was liable to be dismissed as a whole? 3. Whether the finding by both the Courts below are palpably illegal and erroneous on account of concurrent misappreciation and misconstruction of the pleadings of the parties, as well as oral and documentary evidence on record and the legal proposition of law as applicable to the facts of the case? 4. Whether the documents Ext.P-3, Ext.P-4, Ext.P-5, Ext.P-6, Ext.P-7, Ext.PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B have wrongly been ignored by the learned court below, though legally proved on record? 5. Whether the learned lower Courts below have not committed illegality in returning the findings without considering pleadings and evidence of the parties that the suit is within period of limitation on the basis of clear oral and documentary evidence on record, though it is proved on record that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation? 6. 5. Whether the learned lower Courts below have not committed illegality in returning the findings without considering pleadings and evidence of the parties that the suit is within period of limitation on the basis of clear oral and documentary evidence on record, though it is proved on record that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation? 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents has not become infructuous in view of the fact that the State Government has vide its notification No. Rev.B.A.(3)-8/2001 dated 10/09/2004 has reverted back the ownership to the legal heirs of the original owners as per their shares and as even thereafter the land has been revested in the names of the appellants and the mutation in this regard has also not been challenged by the respondents/plaintiffs till date. The notification is also placed on record of the learned Courts below but the same has not been considered hence this pure question of law is yet to be decided in the appeal." Substantial questions of law. 9. The parties at lis are not at contest qua the factum of the suit land standing under Punjab Act No. 1 of 1954 vested in the Gram Panchayat concerned, in pursuance whereof mutation No. 113 comprised in Ext.PW-2/A stood attested/sanctioned on 18.06.1955. One Khoshala since diseased now represented by his LRs besides others instituted suit No. 293/59 against Gram Panchayat Tiai, Tehsil Amb, in 1959 wherein they staked a declaratory right qua theirs holding possession of the suit land as its owners. On the suit aforesaid standing instituted before the Civil Court concerned, notice stood issued to the Gram Panchayat concerned, whereupon it under Ext.PW-4/A resolved to defend the suit also thereunder its the then Sarpanch Sant Ram was bestowed with an authorization to defend the interests of the Gram Panchayat concerned in the suit aforesaid instituted against it, in the Civil Court concerned. A perusal of the apposite resolution, unveils of Sant Ram ,the then, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tiai, Tehsil Amb, holding thereunder, an authorization to defend before the Civil Court concerned, the interests of the Gram Panchayat concerned vis-a-vis the suit land, qua, which a suit stood instituted, by the aforesaid Khoshala, and others, for whittling the effect of the statutory vestment of the suit land, in, the Gram Panchayat concerned. However, Sant Ram, the then, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tiai, who held an authorization to defend, the, interests in litigation of Gram Panchayat Tiai, and, who also did not hold any specific authorization, to, in derogation of the interests in the suit land of the Gram Panchayat concerned, compromise, the suit, (a) significantly when qua the suit land ownership stood vested qua it under a legislative enactment, whereas, he despite his not holding any specific authorization to compromise the interests in litigation of Gram Panchayat, Tiai, besides obviously in transgression of Ext.PW-4/A, he proceeded to, record a statement on 9.12.1959, before the Civil Court concerned, whereupon he accepted the claim in the suit, of, the plaintiffs therein, statement whereof stands couched in the hereinafter extracted phraseology :- "Bian Kiya Ke Dawa Mudai se Iqwal Hai. Decree Bahak Mudian di jawe. Kharcha Frikan Rakha Jawe. Sun Kar Darust Taslim Kiya." 10. In sequel thereto the Civil Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs i.e Khosala and others instituted against Gram Panchayat Tiai, Tehsil Amb. The decree rendered by the Civil Court concerned vis-a-vis Khoshala and others hence sequelled attestation of mutation No.136 in the year 1968 qua the suit land, and, vis-a-vis them. The aforesaid mutation, stood resolved by the Gram Panchayat Tiai to face the ordeal of it standing subjected, to a challenge before the Civil Court concerned, whereupon, Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969 stood instituted, before the Civil Court concerned. However, Sant Ram, the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat concerned, who obviously, abused besides infringed, the, authorization previously bestowed, upon him, by Gram Panchayat Tiai, (a) authorization whereof stands comprised in Ext.PW-4/A, inference of infringement thereof, by him stands spurred, from, his transgressing the specific mandate held therewithin, (b) whereupon he stood only authorized to defend the interests in the suit instituted, against, it by Khoshala and others, (c) besides stands pointedly communicated in his recording a statement before the Civil Court concerned, holding therein, articulations of the suit of Khoshala and others, instituted against Gram Panchayat, Tiai, being ordered to be decreed, (d) whereupon hence an apposite decree also stood rendered vis-a-vis Khoshala and others, (e) and on standing re-elected in 1972 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tiai, Tehsil Amb, ensured passing of a resolution on, 9.3.1973, by the Gram Panchayat concerned wherewithin echoings are held qua Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969, being withdrawn. In pursuance thereto Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969 nominclatured as Gram Panchayat Tiai vs. Khosala and others, stood withdrawn on 23.3.1973, by the Gram Panchayat Tiai wherein mutation No. 136 of 1968 as stood sanctioned qua the suit land vis-a-vis plaintiffs Khoshala and others was subjected to an assault standing constituted thereupon. As a corollary thereto hence the apposite decree in consonance therewith, stood rendered, by the Civil Court concerned. The plaintiffs instituted a suit on 3.4.1973 before the Sub Judge Ist class, Una whereby they claimed a declaratory decree for setting aside mutation number 136 sanctioned, on 25.3.1968 also claimed a declaratory relief qua the apposite decree, dismissing as withdrawn, the suit of the Gram Panchayat Tiai, Tehsil Amb, being declared to be illegal and void, it standing sequelled by collusion and fraud. 11. The aforesaid civil suit, stood instituted, on 3.4.1973 by the plaintiffs before the Sub Judge Ist Class, Una, (a) whereby they assailed the attestation of mutation bearing No. 136 sanctioned, on 25.3.1968, mutation whereof stood attested, in pursuance, to, the rendition of the Civil Court concerned, recorded in 1959, (b) whereupon the plaintiffs therein stood declared, to be owners in possession of the suit land, (c) besides therein they assailed the decree rendered on 17.3.1982 by the Civil Court concerned. The suit aforesaid suffered the fate, of dismissal. In an appeal carried therefrom before the learned Addl. District Judge, it, suffered an alike fate. The plaintiffs therein assailed the decision recorded by the Addl. District Judge, Una by preferring an appeal therefrom, before this Court, whereupon, this Court dismissed their Regular Second Appeal bearing No. 161 of 1987. This Court while pronouncing an adjudication upon RSA No. 161 of 1987 hence dismissed the appeal, preferred herebefore rather by the plaintiffs. The reason, which prevailed upon this Court to dismiss, the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal, preferred herebefore, by the plaintiffs stood embedded in (a) the factum of the apposite decree of the Civil Court concerned, rendered on 9.12.1959 acquiring finality, arising from, the factum of it remaining un-assailed. (b) Also for want of an onslaught standing constituted against it in the suit of the plaintiffs, thereupon their suit of 1973 for hence setting aside, the relevant mutation recorded in the year 1968, mutation whereof stood anvilled thereupon, rather warranting dismissal. (b) Also for want of an onslaught standing constituted against it in the suit of the plaintiffs, thereupon their suit of 1973 for hence setting aside, the relevant mutation recorded in the year 1968, mutation whereof stood anvilled thereupon, rather warranting dismissal. Significantly since no challenge stood constituted, by the plaintiffs against the rendition of the Civil Court concerned pronounced on 9.12.1959 hence constrained this Court, to dismiss, the Regular Second Appeal preferred herebefore, by the plaintiffs, against the, concurrently recorded renditions, of, the learned Courts below, (c) whereby they declined to interfere with the mutation recorded in the year 1968 also declined to afford a declaratory relief qua the decree of dismissal as withdrawn, pronounced qua Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969 being declared to be null and void, it standing procured by collusion and fraud. The plaintiffs therefrom preferred Civil Review No. 47 of 1997, before this Court, whereupon they sought review of the judgment, of this Court, recorded in RSA No. 161 of 1987. This Court dismissed the aforesaid review petition, yet it, reserved liberty to the plaintiffs, to, by availing the appropriate mechanism, prescribed by law hence constitute a challenge, to the judgment and decree pronounced, in 1959, by the Civil Court concerned, rendition(s) whereof stand comprised in Ext.D-2, and, Ext.D-3. Also it ordered qua the question of limitation being sympathetically considered by the Civil Court concerned, whereat, the plaintiffs constitute, a challenge to the judgment, and, decree, comprised in Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3. In sequel, thereto, the plaintiffs, instituted Civil Suit No. 12-1 of 1998 before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No.1, Amb whereupon the latter Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned First Appellate Court, on standing seized with an appeal preferred therebefore by the aggrieved defendants hence dismissed it. The defendants stand aggrieved, by the renditions of the learned Courts below hence for reversing them, they have herebefore, instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal. 12. Division, Court No.1, Amb whereupon the latter Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The learned First Appellate Court, on standing seized with an appeal preferred therebefore by the aggrieved defendants hence dismissed it. The defendants stand aggrieved, by the renditions of the learned Courts below hence for reversing them, they have herebefore, instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal. 12. The suit of the plaintiffs initially instituted, in the year 1973 besides their successive suit, instituted in the year 1998, stood instituted, in a representative capacity, (a) in latter suit whereof they obtained success, by adducing cogent evidence in display qua theirs, in consonance with prescriptions, held in the relevant apposite records hence holding customary rights qua user of the suit land, (b) whereupon they canvassed qua theirs holding a concomitant leverage, to unsettle, the mutation recorded qua the suit land in the year 1968, (c) mutation whereof stood anchored, upon, a decree of the Civil Court concerned pronounced in 1959, rendition whereof of the Civil Court, is palpably, in gross transgression, of, a legislative enactment nomenclatured as Punjab Act No. 1 of 1954, (d) whereupon the suit land came to be vested in Gram Panchayat Tiai, besides in sequel whereto mutation comprised in 113, came to be sanctioned, vis-a-vis. the Gram Panchayat concerned. With the suit of the plaintiffs, standing instituted, in a representative capacity besides with right of customary user of the suit land by the plaintiffs standing clinchingly sustained hence by emphatic evidence, (e) resultantly though, on occurrence of demise of co-plaintiffs No. 7, 8, 14, 16 and 22, during, the pendency of the suit, before the learned trial Court, no apposite motion was made before the Civil Court concerned, for theirs, standing substituted by their LRs nor an order emanated therefrom qua theirs being ordered to be substituted, by their LRs, (f) yet the omission on the part of the plaintiffs to beget their substitution by their LRs, would not entail a consequence qua the suit of the plaintiffs, abating as a whole, (g) contrarily the suit of the plaintiffs would abate only qua deceased co-plaintiffs, who died, during the pendency of the trial of the suit before the learned trial Court, and, on occurrence of whose demise they remained unsubstituted by theirs LRs, in, the apposite array of co-plaintiffs. Since an order of abatement of the extant suit vis-a-vis. Since an order of abatement of the extant suit vis-a-vis. co-plaintiffs whose demise occurred, before the learned trial Court may ipso facto bar their legal representatives, to claim the benefit, of an apposite decree, if any, pronounced by this Court vis-a-vis. other co-plaintiffs also when a suit, hence stands instituted, in a representative capacity, whereunder the collective interest, of, the village proprietary body, qua user by them of the suit land stands staked, (h) hence occurrence of names of the deceased in the apposite array of litigants, in, the renditions of the learned Courts below would not beget, a sequel qua the apposite renditions hence standing ingrained, with a vice of nullity, (i) as any pronouncement by this Court qua hence the renditions of the Court concerned standing afflicted with a vice of nullity, would defeat, the collective interests qua the suit land, of, the village proprietary body, (j) collective interests whereof, stand propagated, by the plaintiffs for themselves besides for the entire village proprietary body, by theirs instituting a representative suit, whereunder they claim assertion of customary rights upon the suit land, (k) rights whereof stand espoused, to ensue in their favour, in, pursuance of the suit land, vesting, in the Gram Panchayat concerned rather under a legislative Enactment aforesaid, (l) also predominantly when the nature of the rights asserted by the plaintiffs are res communis besides when for lack of impleadment at the apposite, stage of the LRs, of deceased co-plaintiffs, has begotten the sequel, of the suit standing ordered to abate only vis-a-vis. them, (m) concomitantly it would be in sagacious to conclude, qua the renditions of the Courts below standing stained with a vice of nullity, arising, from occurrence of their names in the apposite array of litigants, in, the pronouncements made by the Courts concerned. The aforesaid view is warranted, to obviate perpetuation of any mishap, to the collective interests of the village proprietary body, in the suit land, (n) collective interests whereof stand concerted to be protected through the plaintiffs instituting, the instant suit rather in a representative capacity, whereon, the trite assault, for assailing the relevant pronouncements, occurring in the relevant exhibits, stand anchored, upon bestowments, upon them, by a legislative Enactment rather customary rights of user, of, the suit land. Since the collective interests of the village proprietary body, stand canvassed, through, a suit filed by the plaintiffs, in a representative capacity before the Civil Court concerned, (o) as a corollary thereto when obviously, the, interests in the suit land, canvassed by the plaintiffs, are not, individual interests qua property held individually as owners by them rather when the suit property was owned by the Gram Panchayat concerned, whereon, in consonance with prescriptions, held, in the relevant records, they hold, (p) only customary rights qua its user, exercise of rights whereon by them, stand clinchingly, proven, in sequel thereto, when insistence, with inflexible rigidity, is enjoined to be made when, the, plaintiffs hence sue in an individual capacity qua suit property, whereon, they assert rights, as owner, in their individual capacity qua hence on demise of co-plaintiffs, on an apposite motion, at the apposite stage being made before the Court concerned, theirs imperatively standing ordered to be substituted, by theirs LRs, in the apposite array of litigants, (q) wants whereof rendering, the apposite pronouncement, of the Court concerned, to stand ingrained, with a vice of nullity. Contrarily for reasons aforestated, when, the extant suit stands contra distinctively, instituted in a representative capacity, qua suit property, whereon, they do not stake any individual right of ownership rather only espouse rights qua its customary user, (r) thereupon the rigour of the aforesaid inflexible dictate, warrants, its standing relaxed significantly, for protecting the collective interests, in the suit land of the village proprietary body also when the pronouncement of this Court, qua the suit, of the plaintiffs, abating in part qua deceased co-plaintiffs, who at the apposite stage, remained unsubstituted, by their LRS, would hence suffice, to mete a formal deference, thereto, deference aforesaid obviously also wanes the effect of the aforesaid omission. Consequently, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as, prevailing hereat it is deemed fit to order qua the suit of the plaintiffs, standing abated only vis-a-vis. Co-plaintiffs, whose demise occurred during the pendency of the trial of the suit before the learned trial Court, whereat, they remained unsubstituted by their LRs, without ordering for the renditions of the Courts below being declared, to be nonest. 13. The factual matrix of the case, as aforestated underscores, the factum qua of the rendition of the Civil Court concerned, pronounced in 1959, standing pronounced vis-a-vis. 13. The factual matrix of the case, as aforestated underscores, the factum qua of the rendition of the Civil Court concerned, pronounced in 1959, standing pronounced vis-a-vis. the suit land also it unveils qua it standing pronounced inter partes holding no congruity vis-a-vis. inter partes herebefore. Consequently, for lack of analogity in the litigating parties, before the Civil Court concerned, which pronounced a decree, in the year 1959 vis-a-vis. the defendants herebefore, thereupon the principle of res judicata, may not, stand attracted vis-a-vis. the extant suit of the plaintiffs. Tritely put the principle of res judicata encapsulated in Section 11 of the CPC, is hinged upon estoppel, arising from conclusivity of judicial pronouncement, whereas, the principle of estoppel embodied in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is anchored upon pro active waiver besides, abandonments, by plaintiffs to incorporate in their previous suit, all reliefs besides causes of action, which arose thereat. Significantly with the pronouncement qua the suit land occurring in the year 1959, holds analogity vis-a-vis the suit land hereat, yet, with the plaintiffs herebefore not being contestants therebefore whereupon, hence the principle of resjudicata, may not, stand attracted vis-a-vis the instant suit yet it is enjoined to cross the hurdle of limitation besides the hurdle, of, the mandate of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The plaintiffs would succeed in crossing the hurdle of limitation, only on, theirs emphatically, by sustainable relevant evidence, proving the factum of theirs acquiring knowledge, only in the year 1998 qua the pronouncement of the Civil Court, which occurred in the year 1959 hence erupting on deception standing practiced, upon, it by the plaintiffs therein in collusion with Sant Ram, the then, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Tiai, (a) whereupon it would concomitantly acquire a stain of nullity, also would hence pave way for facilitating the plaintiffs, to, on theirs thereupon acquiring knowledge qua the pronouncement, of the Civil Court concerned, standing procured by collusion or fraud practiced, upon, the Court concerned by the plaintiffs, in, collusion with Sant Ram the then Sarpanch of Gram Pranchayat concerned, hence institute an apposite suit, for, therethrough assailing the decree, and, judgment rendered, in the year 1959. The aforesaid conclusion, stands erected, given there being no wrangle qua the proposition qua a decree obtained, by fraud being nonest, also there being no quarrel, with the proposition of law qua it, being assailable, within, the statutorily prescribed period of time, computable from the date of acquisition of knowledge, by the aggrieved qua it standing procured by fraud or collusion. However, before applying the aforesaid principle of law, it is imperative to determine, whether, the plaintiffs acquired knowledge earlier than 1998 qua the pronouncement of the Civil Court concerned, which occurred in the year 1959 hence standing obtained by fraud. In case this Court holds qua the plaintiffs, prior to 1998, holding active knowledge qua the fraud practiced, upon the Civil Court concerned, by the plaintiffs therein, in collusion with Sant Ram the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tiai, Tehsil Amb, thereupon the inevitable sequel thereto would be qua with hence the plaintiffs abandoning, to, in their previous suit instituted in the year 1973, hence incorporate therein the trite factum of the pronouncement of the Civil Court concerned, rendered in the year 1959 rather standing obtained by fraud, whereas, it stood enjoined, by the mandate of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, to, stand embodied therein, (b) transgression whereof, would, attract qua their instant suit the statutory principle, of theirs standing estopped, to, incorporate in the extant suit, a declaratory relief qua the rendition of the Civil Court concerned pronounced, in 1959, hence emanating on fraud in the manner aforesaid, standing practiced, upon it. The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants contends with vigour qua with the plaintiffs', in their instant suit infracting, the embargo of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, arising, from the factum of theirs holding knowledge, qua the factum of rendition, of, the Civil Court concerned pronounced, in 1959, purportedly standing vitiated with a vice of nullity,(c) given it standing procured by them by theirs purportedly practicing fraud upon it, in collusion with Sant Ram the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat concerned, (d) at the stage contemporaneous to the trial of Civil Suit No. 484 of 1969 by the Court concerned, (d) knowledge whereof held thereat by them, is garnerable from the factum, of, the plaintiffs constituting apposite pleadings, in, the instant suit qua theirs acquiring knowledge qua the rendition of the Civil Court concerned, pronounced in 1959, upon the apposite judgment and decree embodied in Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, standing adduced therebefore hence in evidence, (e) pleading whereof portrays their acquiescing qua the trite factum, whereupon, they held leverage, to, with the leave of the Court make apposite amendments, in, the plaint for hence, thereat, theirs assailing the aforesaid renditions, comprised in the aforesaid exhibits whereas theirs omitting to do so, hence rendered invokable vis-a-vis the extant suit, the mandate of order 2 rule 2 CPC, (f) whereupon they stand statutorily ousted, to canvas therein qua the judgment, and, decree of the Civil Court concerned, as, pronounced in 1959, being declared, to be null and void, it standing engineered by fraud, practiced upon the Civil Court concerned, by them, in collusion with Sant Ram the then Sarpanch. However, the aforesaid submission holds no vigour, significantly when the plaintiffs herebefore, were not contestants, in the Civil Suit which stood instituted before the Civil Court concerned in the year 1959, hence concomitantly, when the renditions comprised in Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, stood not rendered inter partes litigants, in the instant Civil Suit, (g) as a corollary thereto, it would be an over exacting expectation from them, qua theirs thereat, holding knowledge qua the pronouncement, of, the Civil Court concerned, which rather occurred in the year 1959. Also the effect of the aforesaid inference, is, of the mere factum of adduction into evidence of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court concerned comprised in Ext.D-2, and, in Ext.D-3, hence not holding the effect of theirs, thereupon also acquiring knowledge, qua the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat concerned, (h) resolution whereof stands pronounced in Ext.PW-4/A whereupon its the then Sarpanch one Sant Ram, was authorized, to defend the apposite civil suit, whereas, in transgression of the mandate held therewithin, qua his standing enjoined, to defend its interests, in the Civil Suit preferred, against it, by the apposite plaintiffs therein, (i) rather his causing mishap to the interests in the suit land of Gram Panchayat Tiai, by making a statement before it, holding echoings therein qua his concedeing, to the claim, as, staked by the apposite plaintiffs, in their apposite suit, (j) proclamation whereof held therewithin is a loud vivid display qua his for securing vis-a-vis them, the decree as prayed for, in their suit, instituted in the year 1959, his hence colluding, with the plaintiffs therein, whereupon, it obviously acquired a stain qua its rendition, emanating from fraud, standing practiced, upon it, by the plaintiffs hence in collusion with Sant Ram, the then, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned. Predominantly also the judgment and decrees of the Civil Court concerned, rendered in 1959, stand unaccompanied, by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat concerned, reflected in Ext.PW-4/A, (k) mandate whereof stood transgressed, by its, the then Sarpanch one Sant Ram, also when no efficacious evidence, stands adduced, by the defendant, in display qua the plaintiffs earlier than 1998 acquiring knowledge qua its making by the Panchayat concerned, (l) evidence whereof stood denoted in the relevant register portraying, qua theirs applying for its copies, whereas, it constituted the foundation, for the plaintiffs efficaciously, hence propagating qua the rendition of the Civil Court concerned comprised in Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, standing procured, by, collusion, rather occurring interse the apposite plaintiffs therein, and, one Sant Ram, the then, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tiai. In aftermath the mere adduction into evidence of Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, during, the course of trial, of the, civil suit instituted, by the plaintiffs in the year 1973, would not ipso facto, beget a conclusion qua theirs thereat also, rather acquiring knowledge qua the making, of, a resolution comprised in Ext.PW-4/A, by the Gram Panchayat concerned nor also hence it can be concluded qua their omission, to in the extant suit assail Ext.D-2, and, Ext.D-3 by making a motion, under, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, before the court concerned whereby they sought its leave to incorporate, in their apposite pleadings, an apposite relief qua Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, standing pronounced to suffer invalidationm (m) hence given theirs standing, stained with a vice of nullity, arising, from theirs standing procured, for them, by Sant Ram, the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tiai, by the latter transgressing the mandate of Ext.PW-4/A besides its rendition, erupting on his holding active complicity with them, (n) conspicuously when he committed breach of resolution comprised in Ext.PW-4/A, by making therebefore, a statement rather abandoning the interests in the suit land of the Panchayat concerned, (o) whereupon the apposite judgment and decree, stood pronounced, hence not inviting qua them the bar of estoppel constituted in the provisions, of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. In other words, when Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, stood founded upon Ext.PW-4/A knowledge whereof, stood for reasons aforestated, unacquired by the plaintiffs till 1998,thereupon it was neither imperative, for the plaintiffs to introduce in their earlier plaint, the aforesaid factum of Ext.D-2 and Ext.D-3, standing ingrained with any vice of nullity, it, standing procured by fraud nor also they stood enjoined, to in their earlier plaint, by making a motion, before the appropriate Court concerned hence seek its leave for incorporating an apposite relief therein qua it hence suffering invalidation nor also any omission of the plaintiffs qua the facet aforesaid would attract qua them the rigour, of the bar, of estoppel constituted in Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, (p) significantly when for its attraction, proven acquisition of knowledge, by the plaintiffs qua the relevant germane facet, at the relevant stage qua its imperative incorporation in the plaint, rather is essential. However, when the aforesaid trite factum is amiss hereat, reiteratedly the bar of estoppel constituted under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, whereupon the plaintiffs stand interdicted to qua the relevant facet seek relief from the Civil Court remains unattracted qua them, (q) thereupon the inevitable sequel is qua suit of the plaintiffs for setting aside the pronouncement, of the Civil Court concerned rendered in 1959, being construable, to be hence within limitation. For reasons aforesaid this Court concludes with aplomb qua the judgments and decrees of the Courts below standing sequelled by theirs appraising the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom it is obvious that the analysis of material on record by the learned Courts below not suffering from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, not suffering from any infirmity rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 13. I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. No costs. However, the defendants are directed to within two weeks comply with the orders of this Court of 18.10.2014 rendered in CMP No. 11109 of 2014. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Records of the Courts below be sent back forthwith.