ORDER : 1. This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.1104 of 2018 in O.S.No.494 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the application filed under Section 151 r/w Section 152 CPC was allowed. 2. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. A.Tejaswi, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner and Sri. D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel on record for respondents. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the present Revision Petition, are that respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.494 of 1991 for specific performance of contract of sale against respondent Nos.2 to 19 herein/defendants; that the General Power of Attorney holders of the defendants filed written statement admitting the suit claim and hence, the suit was decreed on 02.12.1991. 3.1. After a lapse of about 27 years from the date of passing of the said judgment and decree, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the aforesaid application seeking modification of judgment and decree dated 02.12.1991 on the ground that the said judgment and decree did not contain the date and time of execution of the document and also the time limit within which the sale deed has to be executed. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties, allowed the said application on costs. 3.2. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, who is the legal heir of defendant No.5 in OS.No.494 of 1991. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 152 CPC contemplates amendment of decree only when there is clerical or arithmetic mistake or any accidental omission, however, it is not applicable to the cases which are barred by limitation; that non-stipulation of time for performance of contract does not ipso-facto give right to respondent No.1/plaintiff to seek amendment of the decree after expiry of limitation period of 12 years; that the plaintiff has to file an application for rectification of the decree within reasonable time as contemplated under Section 46 of the CONTRACT ACT and as such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court entertaining the application after lapse of 27 years from the date of decree is unsustainable. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the amendment sought for by respondent No.1/plaintiff is not an accidental slip or omission, for which the decree can be amended. Even assuming that the said action is an accidental slip, respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff ought to have approached the Court within reasonable time. 4.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the limitation for execution of the decree is twelve (12) years, whereas in the present case, the application for modification of decree was filed after 12 years, therefore,, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the same. 4.2. Learned senior counsel further contended that the trial Court ought to have verified whether any of the principals are alive or GPA is subsisting as the petition for amendment of Decree has been filed after long length of time. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed without notice to the parties, as such, the same is nullity, in view of the settled proposition of law that passing of order without notice to the parties is a nullity. He further submitted that one of the parties i.e., J.Dr.No.5 expired on18.05.2007, whereas the impugned order was passed on 15.12.2020 and therefore, impugned order passed against a dead person is nullity/invalid. 4.3. Learned senior counsel further contended that the suit- O.S.No.494 of 1991 was filed for specific performance based on the alleged agreement of sale dated 02.01.1990, which was executed basing on GPAs that are dated posterior to the agreement of sale, i.e., document bearing No.3164 of 1990 dated 05.10.1990 and document bearing No.3195 of 1990 dated 06.10.1990; that decree had been obtained by playing fraud and that the plea of fraud can be set up at any stage of the proceedings including in collateral proceedings as fraud vitiates everything the most solemn of proceedings. 4.4. Learned senior counsel further contended that even if the GPAs are assumed to be genuine, the GPA holders can exercise only the powers conferred under the said GPAs and not otherwise. The agents under GPAs dated 05.10.1990 and 06.10.1990 have not been conferred any authority/right to sell the land in Sy.No.571 and therefore, the said agents could not have entered into agreement of sale in respect of Sy.No.571 nor could they have filed written statement conceding to the claim of respondent No.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.494 of 1991 in respect of the said land. 4.5. 4.5. Learned senior counsel further contended that the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1991 in O.S.No.494 of 1991 is non- executable as there was no mention of boundaries of the subject property in the alleged agreement of sale dated 02.07.1990 or in the plaint or in the decree passed by the trial Court. 4.6. Learned senior counsel further contended despite best efforts, as notice was not served on respondent No.6 herein, the trial Court was pleased to order paper publication against him, and that basing on the paper publication, the respondent No.1/plaintiff obtained the ex parte impugned order and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for petitioner relied on the following judgments: (1) S.P. Chengalavraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 (2) A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 (3) Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala , (2006) 7 SCC 416 (4) United India Insurance v. Rajendra Singh , (2000) 3 SCC 581 (5) Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No. 155 of 2008 (6) Gidda Ratna Kumari v. Sunkavalli Naga Kantha Siromani , 2020 (6) ALD 259 (7) Polavarapu Akkinnedu v. Sri Bavaji Mutt Singarayapalem , 1960 SCC OnLine AP 247 (8) Indian Bank Vijayawada v. Banka Bullebbayi , 2005 (6) ALT 683 (9) Sagi Bangarraju v. State Bank of India , 2003 (2) ALT 20 (SB) (10) Amba Bai & Others v. Gopal & Others, (2001) 5 SCC 570 (11) Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Contempt Appeal No. 51 of 2019 (12) Gidda Ratna Kumari v. Sunkavalli Naga Kantha Siromani , 2020 (6) ALD 259 (13) Sagi Bangarraju v. State Bank of India , Visakhapatnam, 2002 (4) ALD 285 (14) Lalti Devi v. Hari Om Kumar , AIR 2024 Patna 117 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff contended that the decree passed in OS.No.494 of 1991 has attained finality during the life time of the revision petitioner’s father, who never raised an objection in relation thereto, and as such, the revision petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the present Revision Petition. 6.1. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff contended that the decree passed in OS.No.494 of 1991 has attained finality during the life time of the revision petitioner’s father, who never raised an objection in relation thereto, and as such, the revision petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the present Revision Petition. 6.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that an office objection was initially raised on the maintainability of the amendment application and the trial Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff and in the light of various judgments of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, passed a detailed order dated 26.11.2018, holding that the amendment application was maintainable and ordered the office to register the said application and only thereafter, notice was issued to the defendants. 6.2. Learned senior counsel further contended that as notices sent to the defendants through RPAD were not served, the trial Court directed to give paper publication and accordingly, the same was taken out in Surya Telugu daily newspaper, dated 07.12.2019, as against the father of revision petitioner. Despite the paper publication, none of the defendants entered appearance in the amendment application. 6.3. Learned senior counsel further contended that there is no requirement of issuance of notice in an application filed under Section 152 CPC seeking correction of a decree. In the present case, no prejudice is caused nor there is infringement of the rights of the revision petitioner, by the amendment application, as the amendment sought for is only to fix the time frame for execution of the decree. He further submitted that there is no change at all in the operative portion of the judgment and decree passed in the suit since there can be no reconsideration of the merits of the matter under Section 152 CPC and as such, the action does not call for a notice to the other parties. 6.4. Learned senior counsel further contended that due to non- fixation of time frame in the decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, the decree could not be enforced and only upon amendment, the decree became enforceable and capable of execution. 7. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff relied on the following judgments: 1. Akkayanaicker v. A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu & Another, (2004) 12 SCC 469 2. Annapu Ramanna v. Ponduri Sreeramulu , 1958 SCC OnLine AP 198 3. 7. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff relied on the following judgments: 1. Akkayanaicker v. A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu & Another, (2004) 12 SCC 469 2. Annapu Ramanna v. Ponduri Sreeramulu , 1958 SCC OnLine AP 198 3. Sued Maqdoom Shah v. Basheer Khatoon , 2005 (5) ALD 602 4. Chaliki Seethayamma v. LAO, Kakinada , 1997 (4) ALD 673 5. Botcha Appalaswamy v. Ravada Annapurnama , 1997 (2) ALD 794 6. Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag , 1966 SCC Online SC 29 7. Fatimunnisa Begum v. Mohammed Zainulabuddin Saheb , 1985 SCC OnLine AP 72 8. State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Wanaparthy v. B. Rangaswamy , 2004 (1) ALD 645 9. Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 10. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3612 11. Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh , (2010) 8 SCC 685 12. Manika Odayar v. D.A. Mustafa , 1997 (2) L.W. 125 13. Satbir Singh v. Smt. Har Kaur , 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 588 14. Gagandeep Prathishthan Pvt. Ltd. v. Mechano , (2002) 1 SCC 475 8. As stated supra, learned senior counsel for petitioner has principally raised multiple grounds on the maintainability of suit as well as the application for modification of decree dated 02.12.1991. He further contended that GPAs were executed in respect of lands situated in Sy.Nos.573, 547, 548, 550, 549, 552, 561, 567, 569, 570, 573, 574, 575, 580 and 581, whereas the suit land forms part of Sy.No.571, in respect of which no power or authority was given to GPA holders. He further submitted that the GPA holders executed agreement of sale in respect of the land forming part of Sy.No.571 without any power or authority and the written statement filed admitting the suit claim is also per se without any authority. However, the trial Court decreed the suit based on the admission of claim made by the said GPA holders without considering the above aspects. 8.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that fraud vitiates everything, therefore, the ground of fraud can be agitated in any proceedings including in collateral proceedings. 8.2. However, the trial Court decreed the suit based on the admission of claim made by the said GPA holders without considering the above aspects. 8.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that fraud vitiates everything, therefore, the ground of fraud can be agitated in any proceedings including in collateral proceedings. 8.2. Learned senior counsel further submitted that one of the respondents i.e., respondent No.6 expired on 18.05.2007 i.e., much prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 15.12.2020 and therefore, the impugned order is nullity in the eye of law. 8.3. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the plaintiff, in whose favour decree was passed, has not filed Execution Petition within the limitation period of 12 years from the date of passing of the decree. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the application for amendment of the decree was filed after a lapse of 27 years from the date of passing the decree, which is clearly barred by limitation, and therefore, in the absence of any proper explanation/reasons given by the plaintiff as to what prevented it from seeking amendment of decree within the limitation period of12 years for filing the EP, the trial Court ought to have rejected the application instead of entertaining the same. By contending thus, learned counsel for revision petitioner prayed to allow this Revision petitioner by setting aside the impugned order. 9. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff contended that no limitation is prescribed for filing an application for amendment of decree and therefore, the contention of learned counsel for revision petitioner that the application filed for amendment of decree is barred by limitation is untenable. He further submitted that in the application filed for modification of decree, notice was issued to the respondents, however, as the same was not served, the trial Court ordered for paper publication and the notice was published in Surya Telugu newspaper and despite the publication, none appeared, therefore, the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, allowing the application. 9.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the contentions with regard to maintainability of the suit and the decree was obtained by playing fraud cannot be adjudicated in a Revision as the present Revision proceedings are not collateral proceedings of suit and decree and thus, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 10. 9.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the contentions with regard to maintainability of the suit and the decree was obtained by playing fraud cannot be adjudicated in a Revision as the present Revision proceedings are not collateral proceedings of suit and decree and thus, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition. 10. From the material placed on record, it is evident that respondent No.6 herein, who is respondent No.5 in the IA before the trial Court, expired on 18.05.2007, whereas the impugned order was passed on 15.12.2020. Therefore, as on the date of passing of the impugned order, one of the respondents i.e., respondent No.6 herein was not alive and hence, the impugned order is a nullity in view of the settled legal position that decree passed by a Court for or against a dead person is a nullity, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments [See Gurnam Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives , (2017) 13 SCC 414 ] . 11. In the teeth of the aforesaid fact and aspect alone, this Court is not inclined to examine the aspects of authority of GPA holders to execute agreement of sale, maintainability of the suit and obtaining of decree by playing fraud. Therefore, this Court is not delving into merits of the case and the various authorities referred to and relied upon by learned senior counsel appearing for both the parties on maintainability of the suit and the aspect of fraud. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the impugned order passed against a dead person, who is respondent No.6 herein, is a nullity and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for adjudication of IA.No.1104 of 2018 afresh, on its own merits, by duly affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, including the revision petitioner herein. It is made clear that all the contentions raised by the parties in the present Revision are left open to be agitated before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider the same while adjudicating the application and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by any of the observations, if any, made by this Court in the present order. 14. It is made clear that all the contentions raised by the parties in the present Revision are left open to be agitated before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider the same while adjudicating the application and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by any of the observations, if any, made by this Court in the present order. 14. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.