Short answer. Possibly, but it isn't automatic. Rule 47, Section 7 lets the court, on motion, order the trial court to try your original case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted, when the judgment was annulled for extrinsic fraud. Otherwise, annulment merely voids the judgment without prejudice to refiling the action.
What the law says
A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court.
Rule 47, Section 7 — Effect of judgment. Read the full provision →
What the law says
where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein
Rule 47, Section 7 — Effect of judgment. Read the full provision →
The general rule: annulment voids the judgment, and refiling is the fallback
Rule 47, Section 7 starts from a default position that does not favor a retrial in the same case: a judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. On its own, that default means the original case is simply undone, and whoever wants to pursue the underlying claim has to start it over as a new action, not pick up the old one where it left off.
The extrinsic-fraud ground carries its own remedy
The same section then departs from that default specifically for extrinsic fraud: where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein. That is what lets your original case be tried again in the same proceeding, rather than forcing a completely new lawsuit, when extrinsic fraud is the reason the judgment was annulled.
Retrial is not automatic; it takes a motion
The rule's own wording matters here: the court may order the retrial, and only on motion. Annulling the judgment for extrinsic fraud does not by itself send the case back to the trial court for a new hearing. Somebody has to ask for it, and the court then has discretion whether to grant that request. Without that additional motion and order, the annulment on its own still leaves you with a voided judgment rather than a case set for retrial.
What this means for your situation
If your judgment is annulled on the ground of extrinsic fraud, you are not automatically stuck refiling from scratch, but you are also not automatically back in front of the trial court either. The mechanism the rule provides is a motion asking the court to order the trial court to try the case as though a timely motion for new trial had been granted. Whether that route is taken, instead of simply refiling the original action, depends on that motion being filed and granted.