Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1103

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023
With
Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 673 of 2023 With MA No. 1737 of 2023 in MA 255 of 2023 in C.A. No. 636 of 2022, With CONMT. PET. (C) No. 23-24 of 2024 in W.P. (C) No. 673 of 2023 With Diary No(s). 6013 of 2024 With SMC (C) No. 3 of 2024
Decided on : 23-07-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mrs. M.b.ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv. Mr. Suvigya Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Raj, Adv. Mr. Vivek Joshi, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Ms. Saloni Meshram, Adv. Ms. Sneha Deorao Balapure, Adv. Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Adv. M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 32, 129, 300-A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rules 9 and 10, Order XIV Rule 2, Order XLVII; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Order LV Rule 6; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 6, 18, 24; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24; Land Revenue Act, 1996 - Section 34.

(B) Legal principles - "Fraud unravels everything" is a cardinal principle, whereby judgments and orders procured by fraud are void ab initio (Paras 1-5, 61); non-joinder of necessary parties in writ proceedings affecting their rights vitiates the order for breach of natural justice (Paras 43-46); maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 requires a clear pleading of violation of Fundamental Rights (Paras 66-81); doctrine of merger applies to appellate orders but is subject to exceptions including fraud, public interest and incomplete adjudication (Paras 90-124). (Paras 101-123)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involves competing claims over co-owned land acquired by a development authority. Initially jointly owned by three parties, one party obtained a compromise decree asserting sole ownership by allegedly suppressing prior joint ownership and misusing a cancelled Power of Attorney. The sole owner claim was accepted by the High Court and partly upheld by this Court in compensation matters. The aggrieved co-owner challenged these orders alleging fraud and sought fresh adjudication and re-determination of compensation, alongside remedies for fraud on court and non-disclosure of material facts (Paras 6-11, 38-49).

Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32; applicability of doctrine of merger; whether fraud was played on courts by misrepresentation and suppression of facts; entitlement to challenge final orders procured by fraud; forum shopping allegations; appropriate remedies in light of established fraud (Paras 29-31).

Findings of Court:
The Court found that fraud had been committed by the respondent in obtaining the sole ownership decree and compensation orders by non-joinder of parties and suppression of material facts, including fabricated documents and unauthorized pleadings. The High Court and this Court’s previous orders were vitiated by fraud and lacked legal sanctity. The writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable as Fundamental Rights were not shown violated but the civil appeal challenging the impugned orders was maintainable. Doctrine of merger did not bar the appeal where fraud was established. Procedural technicalities cannot bar justice in cases of fraud. The Court recalled and set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matters to the High Court for fresh adjudication with all proper parties impleaded. Interim orders restraining alienation of assets and securities furnished were continued (Paras 37-64, 69-81, 84-130, 144-148).

Ratio Decidendi: Judgments and orders obtained by fraud are nullities and can be impeached at any stage (Paras 1-5, 60-64); non-joinder of parties whose rights are affected in writ proceedings breaches natural justice and vitiates orders (Paras 43-47); writ jurisdiction under Article 32 requires meaningful pleading of fundamental rights infringement (Paras 66-81); doctrine of merger does not preclude interference with fraudulent orders or remedies by non-parties prejudiced by such orders (Paras 90-124). Consequently, the Court exercised inherent powers to set aside orders obtained by fraud and allowed fresh adjudication (Paras 144-148).

Result: Civil appeal and connected applications allowed; impugned order dated 28th October, 2021 and earlier judgment dated 5th May, 2022 declared null and void and recalled; writ petition dismissed; matter remanded to High Court for fresh determination with proper parties impleaded; interim orders continued; costs borne by parties.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a dispute over co-owned land acquired by a development authority, with allegations of fraud and misrepresentation affecting the ownership and proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The primary legal principles established include that judgments obtained through fraud are void ab initio and can be challenged at any stage, and non-joinder of necessary parties breaches natural justice, vitiating orders (!) (!) (!) .
The Court found that fraud had been committed by the respondent in obtaining decrees and orders, including suppression of material facts, fabricated documents, and unauthorized pleadings, which tainted the legitimacy of prior judgments (!) (!) (!) .
Orders procured by fraud are considered nullities and do not have legal sanctity; they can be impeached at any time, and the doctrine of merger does not apply where fraud is established (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities or technicalities cannot be used to shield fraudulent acts, and the Court has inherent powers to set aside such orders to uphold justice (!) (!) (!) .
The case highlights that suppression of material facts, especially those that could influence the merits, invalidates the orders obtained by concealment or deception. Reddy's failure to disclose ongoing suits and other relevant facts was deemed fraudulent conduct (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger has limited applicability and exceptions, particularly when orders are obtained by fraud. Orders tainted by fraud do not merge and remain open to challenge (!) (!) (!) .
The Court rejected the argument that the impugned order had merged into the final order of the Court, holding that fraud vitiates the entire order and that the orders obtained by Reddy are invalid (!) (!) (!) .
The Court also addressed procedural issues, affirming that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice and can be relaxed or overridden in cases of fraud to prevent miscarriage of justice (!) (!) (!) .
The Court dismissed the contention that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of violation of Fundamental Rights, as the core grievance was related to property rights and procedural fairness, not fundamental rights directly (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that a writ under Article 32 is not maintainable when no fundamental rights are violated, and orders of courts cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless there is a breach of fundamental rights or natural justice (!) (!) .
The Court rejected the argument that the civil appeal was not maintainable due to merger, emphasizing that orders obtained through fraud do not merge and can be challenged at any time (!) (!) .
The Court noted that the proceedings initiated by Vishnu, including civil suits, writ petitions, review applications, and contempt petitions, were part of a broader effort to challenge fraudulent orders and seek justice (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the Court set aside the impugned orders, declared them null and void due to fraud, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with all relevant parties properly impleaded. It also reaffirmed that orders procured by fraud are always subject to challenge and do not possess legal sanctity (!) (!) .
The Court exercised its inherent powers to recall and set aside previous judgments and orders obtained through fraudulent conduct, emphasizing that procedural laws cannot be used to perpetuate fraud or injustice (!) (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this case.

Table of Content
1. general principles on fraud unravelling judicial acts (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. factual background: parties, land ownership and litigation history (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
3. vishnu’s allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by reddy (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
4. reddy’s defence: challenges on maintainability and merits (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. vishnu’s reply to maintainability objections (Para 28)
6. framing of maintainability and substantive issues (Para 29)
7. preliminary legal analysis and approach to adjudication of fraud allegations (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
8. court’s detailed observations on fraud by reddy, inconsistencies, and concealment (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
9. court’s analysis on maintainability of writ petition and jurisdiction (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)
10. court’s reasoning rejecting 'intra-court appeal' argument and affirming jurisdiction despite fraud (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89)
11. exposition of doctrine of merger: origin and english law principles (Para 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100)
12. doctrine of merger in indian law: leading judgments and key principles (Para 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111)
13. limits and exceptions to merger doctrine including fraud exception (Para 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124)
14. procedural law as aid to justice; procedural irregularities and fraud (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131)
15. court’s analysis on procedural propriety in pursuing civil appeal and review petition (Para 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137)
16. conclusion on fraud invalidating orders and recalling prior judgments (Para 138 , 139)
17. consideration of allegations of forum shopping and party participation (Para 140 , 141 , 142 , 143)
18. final conclusion, directions, and orders for remand and further proceedings (Para 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148)

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

INDEX

INTRODUCTION

FACTS

IMPUGNED ORDER

BEFORE THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 3636-37 OF 2022

CONTENTIONS

ARGUMENTS BY VISHNU

ARGUMENTS BY REDDY

ARGUMENTS BY NOIDA

REPLY BY VISHNU REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO MAINTAINABILITY

ISSUES

ANALYSIS

I. HAS REDDY PLAYED FRAUD ON THE COURTS?

II. MAINTAINABILITY

A. MAINTAINABILITY OF THE WRIT PETITION

B. MAINTAINABILITY OF CIVIL APPEAL/JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

INTRA-COURT APPEAL

MERGER

PROCEDURE, IF AN IMPEDIMENT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION

C. VISHNU PURSUING THE CIVIL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE REVIEW PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION/RECALL, SIMULTANEOUSLY

D. FORUM SHOPPING

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

1. In Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2017) 4 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphatically asserted “… stated simply, nothing … nothing … and nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything.”

2. At the end of the last century, this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , (1994) 1 SCC 1 noticed the growing trend of abuse of the process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts. Fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another: a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. The opening paragraph of such decision reads as follows:

“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/