Short answer. No. Rule 47, Section 8 generally suspends the prescriptive period for refiling the original action from its filing until the judgment of annulment becomes final, but it expressly withholds that suspension where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action. If the fraud was yours, the clock does not pause.
What the law says
The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment
Rule 47, Section 8 — Suspension of prescriptive period. Read the full provision →
What the law says
However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action
Rule 47, Section 8 — Suspension of prescriptive period. Read the full provision →
The general rule: the clock pauses during the annulment case
Rule 47, Section 8 sets a general rule for the effect of an annulment case on your right to refile: "The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment." Ordinarily, the time spent litigating the annulment does not count against the period you have to refile.
The exception that applies to you
The very next sentence takes that benefit away in one specific situation: "However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action." If the extrinsic fraud that led to the annulment was yours, and you were the plaintiff who obtained the original judgment, this exception applies to you by its own terms.
Why the exception is written this way
The suspension exists to keep the original plaintiff from losing the right to refile simply because the annulment case took time to resolve. That protection makes little sense where the plaintiff's own extrinsic fraud is what caused the judgment to be annulled in the first place — the delay in that scenario traces back to the plaintiff's own wrongdoing, not to circumstances outside the plaintiff's control. The rule withholds the benefit precisely from the person whose conduct created the need for annulment.
What this means for you specifically
Because you have described committing the extrinsic fraud that got the earlier judgment in your favor annulled, and because that earlier judgment was the one you obtained as plaintiff, the exception in the second sentence applies directly to your situation. The prescriptive period for refiling was not suspended while the annulment case was pending, which means the time that passed during that case counts against whatever period you have left to refile, leaving you with less time than the general rule would otherwise have given.