The duty of courts to discourage wrongdoers and maintain the purity of judicial proceedings, emphasizing the importance of truth in the judicial process

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner assails the order dated 19th November, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No.302/2009 by filing of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 17th August, 2010 striking out the defence of the petitioner (defendant No.1 in the suit).

2. The parties to the present petition have made their respective rival submissions. It is necessary to mention certain facts with regard to the litigations pending between the parties.

3. Sh.Harnam Singh, respondent No.1 herein, executed an agreement to sell dated 5th October, 2004 in respect of suit bearing No.G-2, Old Mahavir Nagar, Main Najafgarh Road, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, measuring 133 sq. yards, for a total sale consideration of Rs.10 lac in favour of the present petitioner Sh.Hari Shankar, who filed a suit for specific performance against Sh.Harnam Singh, respondent No.1 before the learned District Judge, being Suit No.441/2004, which was decreed on the application under Order XII, Rule 6 CPC for judgment on admission by order dated 25th April, 2005. The petitioner thereafter filed an execution, being Execution No.389/2006, wherein a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court through whom the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 25th August, 2006 in respect of the suit property. The respondent No.1 thereafter in the year 2008 filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and prohibitory injunction, being Suit No.45/2008, against the petitioner herein (defendant No.1 in the suit) and respondent No.2 (defendant No.2 in the suit) praying therein, inter alia, for passing a decree for declaration for setting aside the decree and judgment dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No.441/2004. The sum and substance of the suit filed by the respondent No.1 is that the consent decree obtained by the petitioner was by playing fraud upon the Court as well as the respondent No.1 who averred such details in the plaint. Copy of the same was supplied to this Court. Such details taken from the copy of the plaint supplied are mentioned as under:

i) The respondent No.1 in the year 2008 was surprised and shocked to see the Agreement to Sell on the records which was never signed by him and his signatures are forged on the said agreement and was also surprised to see the copy of the sale deed. The respondent No.1 never engaged Shri S.K. Rajput, his advocate nor he ever engaged Shri Parmanand Prasad, Advocate, who had been appearing in the said suit.

ii) Shri S.C. Singhal, Advocate who thereafter instructed his associate Shri Praveen Suri, Advocate to inspect the entire court record of the suit file and he having come to know of the entire story being sure of further action also directed for inspection of the execution record and found that judgment and decree was shown to be proceeded ex-parte thereafter application under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC has been moved and Shri Praveen Suri, Advocate shown the said application to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 was shocked and surprised to see that the application does not bear his signatures and the signature on the application are forged. It was further worth noting that the application is supported by the affidavit of Shri Parmanand Prasad, Advocate who has filed an affidavit in support of the application and such application is not supported by affidavit of respondent No.1.

iii) Perusal of the records revealed that the written statement was got drafted on 4.2.2005 and the said written statement or supporting affidavit does not bear his signatures. The respondent No.1 surprised to know from Shri Praveen Suri, Advocate about the proceedings in which he never appeared nor signed any documents and for the first time came to know only in January, 2008 as stated above that the judgment and decree has been passed on