As per case facts, the Plaintiffs (Government) filed a suit seeking to declare an earlier ex-parte Decree null and void due to alleged fraud by the Defendant regarding Government land. ... The Trial Court returned and then rejected the plaint without numbering it, citing non-maintainability and limitation, without affording sufficient opportunity to the Plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by this rejection, the Plaintiffs appealed to the High Court. The question arose whether a litigant, previously a defendant in a suit resulting in an ex-parte Decree, can file a fresh suit alleging fraud after exhausting procedural remedies to set aside the initial Decree, and whether a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against a plaint rejection order. Finally, the High Court held that the Trial Court's rejection violated natural justice, as limitation can be a mixed question of fact and law requiring a trial. It affirmed that fraud vitiates all solemn acts and a suit alleging fraud is maintainable even after an ex-parte Decree. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition, directing the Trial Court to number the plaint and proceed as per law, hearing on limitation and maintainability.