Sushil S/O Sohanlal Agrawal vs Naresh Hanumanprasad Agrawal And ... on 8 September, 2025
In the case of Manibhai Chaturbhai Patel (supra), also the date
of knowledge was mentioned in the plaint and the Gujarat High Court has
held that the correctness or otherwise of the said averment made in the
plaint cannot be ascertained while dealing with an application under Order
VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. In the case of Bishunath Tewari (supra), the Patna
4.cra.104.19.jud.doc 15/18
High Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 44 of the Evidence
Act. The Court was dealing with the relevance of judgment delivered in
another suit in view of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. In this
context, the Court has observed that if a judgment is obtained by fraud, the
issue of fraud in obtaining the judgment can be set up as a collateral
ground of attack and that is not necessary to have the judgment obtained
by fraud reversed or set aside. The said judgment is clearly inapplicable to
the facts of the present case, where relief of cancellation of sale-deed is
sought on the ground that the same is obtained by fraud. The provisions of
Section 44 of the Evidence Act are clearly not relevant in the present case.