7.2. However, it is required to be noted that except the words used ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ there are no specific particulars pleaded with respect to the ‘fraud’. It appears that by a clever drafting and using the words ‘fraud’/’fraudulent’ without any specific particulars with respect to the ‘fraud, the Plaintiff-Appellant herein intends to get out of the bar Under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act and wants the suit to be maintainable. As per the settled preposition of law mere mentioning and using the word ‘fraud’/'(fraudulent is not sufficient to satisfy the test of ‘fraud’. As per the settled preposition of law such a pleading/using the word ‘fraud’ / ‘fraudulent’ without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of ‘fraud’.

8.1. Similar view has been expressed in Ladli Parshad Jaiswal [Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., (1964) 1 SCR 270 : AIR 1963 SC 1279] and after considering the decision of the Privy Council in Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd. v. Harish Chandra [Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd. v. Barish Chandra, 1937 SCC OnLine PC 24 : (1936-37) 64 IA 143], it is held that a litigant who prefers allegation of fraud or other improper conduct must place on record precise and specific details of these charges. Even as per Order VI Rule 4 in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, particulars shall be stated in the pleading.

Similarly, in K. C. Sharma & Co. [Union of India v. K. C. Sharma & Co., (2020) 15 SCC 209] it is held that “fraud” has to be pleaded with necessary particulars. In Ram Singh [Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan, (1986) 4 SCC 364, it is observed and held by this Court that when the suit is barred by any law, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid mention of those circumstances by which the suit is barred by law of limitation.