is very well aware about the decree passed in O.S.No.49/2005. But purposely, she has not appeared in the case and instigated the plaintiff to file the suit. Further, an observation is made that only for the sake of contesting the suit in O.S.No.49/2005, she has filed a written statement but not contested the same and later, compromised the suit. Having taken note of conduct of the parties, Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff has not proved the case that decree is obtained but the said decree was obtained by fraud and the Trial Court while answering Issue No.3 comes to the conclusion that if the version of the plaintiff is to be believed, then why the plaintiff has not produced any documents pertaining to decree which was obtained by defendant No.2 against defendant No.1 in O.S.No.36/2005. Except mere say of the plaintiff, no oral and documentary evidence to prove the same. As per Ex.D13, O.S.No.36/2005 came to be decreed on 19.04.2010 and this suit came to be filed only on 09.12.2010 i.e., subsequently disposal of the suit in O.S.No.36/2005. It is also taken a note of the fact that only with an intention to file the present suit, said cause of action is created by the plaintiff. Hence, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the
