Back
2013 Supreme(All) 3182
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.S. Chauhan, J.
Ram Kewal and another - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.545 (M/S) of 2011
Decided On : 26-11-2013
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to set aside ex-parte orders and direct a fair trial when fraudulent activities are found to have influenced the legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Forgery - Property Dispute - CPC - IPC - [Section 151 CPC, Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC] - The court discussed the fraudulent activities committed by the petitioners in collusion with witnesses, the filing of forged documents, and the subsequent legal proceedings. The court found that the sale deed was executed by an imposter and that fraud was practiced upon the court. The Forensic Science Laboratory report also confirmed the fraudulent nature of the signatures on the sale deed. The court set aside the ex-parte orders and directed the trial court to decide the case after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the petitioners were accused of committing fraud by filing forged documents and obtaining ex-parte orders in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had engaged in fraudulent activities and had obtained ex-parte orders through forged documents. The court set aside the ex-parte orders and directed the trial court to re-evaluate the case after giving an opportunity to the parties to present evidence.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the fraudulent activities of the petitioners, the validity of the ex-parte orders, and the subsequent legal proceedings initiated by the affected party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding of fraudulent activities, the confirmation of fraud by the Forensic Science Laboratory report, and the setting aside of the ex-parte orders to allow for a fair trial with the opportunity for evidence presentation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court's decision to set aside the ex-parte orders and direct a re-evaluation of the case by the trial court was upheld.
S.S. Chauhan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.9.2010 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.62 of 2003 and a further prayer has been made for prohibiting Civil Judge, Junior Division, (Haveli), Faizabad not to proceed with the trial of Regular Suit No.33 of 1983.
3. The facts in short are that the land of Ram Pher, father of opposite party no.4, was purchased by petitioner no.1-Ram Kewal (minor) through his father-petitioner no.2 as a natural guardian by impersonation vide sale deed dated 18.11.1982. As and when it came to the knowledge of Ram Pher that a fraudulent sale deed has been executed, he instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction on 31.1.1983 alleging therein that he has never executed the sale deed nor he ever appeared before the Sub Registrar nor received any consideration. The said suit was registered as Suit No.33 of 1983. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed a forged compromise dated 1.8.1983. In the said compromise a forged statement of Ram Pher was recorded on 19.8.1983 by impersonating someone else on his behalf and the compromise deed was allegedly verified by the court below and the suit was decreed in terms of compromise vide order dated 19.8.1983. In the year 1991, petitioner no.1 (minor) again filed a Suit No.74 of 1991 for declaring the order dated 19.8.1983 passed in Regular Suit No.33 of 1983 by means of which the suit was decreed in terms of compromise as alleged by stating therein that petitioner no.2 did not take proper care of his interest, who was minor and the same was not in his interest and petitioner no.2 was impleaded as defendant no.2. In Suit No.74 of 1991, no notice was ever issued against the father of opposite party no.4, namely, Ram Pher but again fraudulent and forged vakalatnama was filed on behalf of Ram Pher. No written statement was filed by Ram Pher and petitioner no.2, who was defendant no.1, supported the suit and the suit was decided ex-parte against Ram Pher vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.1994. After some time, father of opposite party no.4, namely, Ram Pher came to know about the alleged forgery committed by the petitioners and he moved an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.8.1983 passed in Regular Suit No.33 of 1983, which was rejected on 18.9.2003. Ram Pher also filed restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgement and decree dated 15.4.1994 passed in Suit No.74 of 1991, which was also rejected vide order dated 18.9.2003. Ram Pher proceeded to lodge an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC at Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad at Crime No.236 of 2001. After investigation in the same case, a charge sheet was filed on 23.1.2003 against petitioner no.2 and two witnesses, namely, Ram Surat Pandey and Vinod Kumar. The trial is going on and the same is at a very advanced stage. The Forensic Science Laboratory has also reported that thumb impression on the sale deed was not of the alleged executant of the sale deed viz. Ram Pher. Ram Pher filed a Civil Revision No.369 of 2003 against the order dated 18.9.2003 by means of which his application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-pare judgment dated 19.8.1983 was rejected. Ram Pher also filed Civil Appeal No.62 of 2003 against the order dated 18.9.2003 by means of which his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.4.1994 passed in Suit No.74 of 1991 was rejected and the said appeal of Ram Pher was partly allowed vide order dated 23.9.2010. Civil Revision and the Civil Appeal were decided together by the same court and both found mention on each other and in the judgment of Civil Appeal a finding has been recorded that the summons were never issued to Ram Pher and partly
