Back
1994 JLJ 110
S.K. Dubey, J.
Naraindas v. Bhagwandas
S.A. No. 35 of 1983; against the judgment and decree passed by Shri B.S.
Thakur, Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind, in
Civil Appeal No.100-A of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree passed
by Shri K.S. Chouhan, Additional Civil Judge Class II, Lahar, in Civil Suit
No. 87-A of 1980; Decided on 20.4.1992.
The law is settled that when an ex parte decree is passed, a defendant to get rid of the said decree can avail either of the four remedies -- he may pray for review; or he may apply for setting aside of the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on the ground of existence of sufficient cause for his non-appearance or because of the non-service or defective service of summons; or he may file an appeal; or he may also institute a suit on limited ground of fraud. To get rid of ex parte decree, as obtained by fraud, if a suit is instituted, such a suit would be maintainable notwithstanding the fact that it has not been preceded by an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. [Para 8
(2) Jurisprudence -- fraud and collusion -- vitiate most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. [Para 9
(3) Words and Phrases -- words "fraud and collusion" -- concept of.
Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. Fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false. But fraud in public law is not the same as fraud in private law, nor can the ingredients which establish fraud in commercial transaction be of assistance in determining fraud in Administrative Law. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. (1992) 1 SCC 534 followed. AIR 1962 Guj. 10 relied on. [Para 10
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.9 R. 13 -- setting aside of ex parte decree -- decree obtained by practising fraud on Court -- may be set aside even in separate suit for that relief. AIR 1967 All. 221 and AIR 1988 Born. 64 relied on. [Para 12
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 5 R. 2 and O. 9 R. 13 proviso II -- summons served without enclosing copy of plaint -- such service is not due and valid service -defect is not curable under 2nd proviso to 0.9 R.13. 1989 MPLJ 705 relied on. [Para 13
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 5 R. 1 -- summons served after specified date of hearing the suit fixed therein -- no service at all -- fresh summons should be issued -- defendant cannot be supposed to find out the next day fixed in the suit. [Para 14
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.9 R.13 -- ex parte decree in former suit set aside in subsequent suit on ground of fraud -- former suit is revived. AIR 1931 Pat. 204, AIR 1955 Ass. 231 and AIR 1957 Mad. 512 relied on. [Para 16
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-9 fu-13 & ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr djus ds fy, miyC/k mipkj & çfroknh vkosnu Qkby dj ldrk gS vFkok vihy dj ldrk gS & vFkok iqufoZyksdu dh çkFkZuk dj ldrk gS ;k diV ds vk/kkj ij okn lafLFkr dj ldrk gSA ;g fof/k LFkkfir gS fd tc dksbZ ,di{kh; fMØh ikfjr dh xbZ gS] rc çfroknh dfFkr fMØh ls eqDr gksus ds fy, pkj esa ls fdlh Hkh mipkj dk Qk;nk mBk ldrk gS & og iqufoZYkksdu dh çkFkZuk dj ldrk gS( vFkok og flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ds v/khu mldh vuqilatkfr ds fy, i;kZIr dkj.k fo|eku gksus ds vk/kkj ij ;k leu rkehy u fd, tkus vFkok =qfV;qDr rkehy ds dkj.k ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr djus ds fy, vkosnu dj ldrk gS( vFkok og vihy Qkby dj ldrk gS( ;k og diV ds lhfer vk/kkj ij okn lafLFkr dj ldrk gSA diV }kjk çkIr dh xbZ] ,di{kh; fMØh ls eqDr gksus ds fy, ;fn okn lafLFkr fd;k x;k gS] rc bl rF; ds gksrs gq, Hkh fd mlds iwoZ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ds v/khu vkosnu ugha fd;k x;k gS] ,slk okn xzkàk gksxkA ¿iSjk 8 ¼2½ fof/k ‘kkL= & diV rFkk nqLlaf/k & fof/k ‘kkL= dh fdlh Hkh ç.kkyh esa vR;ar lR;fu"B dk;Zokfg;kas dks nwf"kr dj nsrs gSaA ¿iSjk 9 ¼3½ ‘‘kCn rFkk okD; & ‘‘kCn ^^diV rFkk nqLlaf/k** ladYiukA diV rFkk nqLlaf/k }kjk fof/k ‘kkL= dh fdlh Hkh lH; ç.kkyh esa vR;ar lR;fu"B dk;Zokfg;k¡ Hkh nwf"kr gks tkrh gSA diV] fdlh rF; ds ckjs esa O;in‘kZu djus okys dh foef‘kZr lfØ; Hkwfedk ls mn~Hkwr gksrk gS ftls og tkurk gS fd vlR; gS] rFkkfi og O;ifn"V dks mldk lR; gksus dk fo‘okl fnyk dj Hkzfer djus esa lQy gksrk gSA O;ins‘ku diViw.kZ gksus ds fy, og ,sls rF; dk gksuk pkfg, ftldk vlR; gksus dk Kku gksaA fdarq yksd fof/k esa diV çkbosV fof/k tSlk gh ugha gS] u okf.kfT;d laO;ogkj eas diV LFkkfir djus okys rRo ç‘kklfud fof/k esa diV vo/kkfjr djus esa lgk;d gks ldrs gSaA dkuwu esa diV dh /kkj.kk laçfr ‘kfDr ds nq#i;ksx vFkok ‘kfDr ds vln~Hkkoiw.kZ ç;ksx ds pkjkas vksj ?kwerh jgh gSA ¼1992½ 1 ,l lh lh 534 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1962 xqtjkr 10 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 10 ¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-9 fu-13 & ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr fd;k tkuk & fMØh U;k;ky; ls diV dj ds çkIr dh xbZ & mlds vuqrks"k ds fy, lafLFkr i`Fkd okn esa Hkh vikLr dh tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1967 bykgkckn 221 rFkk , vkb vkj 1967 bykgkckn 221 rFkk , vkb vkj 1988 eqacbZ 64 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 12 ¼5½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-5 fu-2 rFkk vk-9 fu-13 f}rh; ijarqd & leu dh okni= dh çfrfyfi layXu fd, fcuk rkehy & ,slh rkehy lE;d~ :Ik ls vkSj fof/kekU; rkehy ugha gS & =qfV vk-9 fu-13 ds f}rh; ijarqd ds v/khu mipkj.kh; ugha gSaA 1989 ,e ih ,y ts 705 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 13 ¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-5 fu-1 & leu dh okn dh lquokbZ ds fy, fu;r fofufnZ"V rkjh[k ds ckn rkehy & rkehy gh ugha gSa & u;k leu tkjh fd;k tkuk pkfg, & çfroknh ls vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh fd okn esa fu;r vxyh rkjh[k dk irk yxk,A ¿iSjk 14 ¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-9 fu-13 & iwoZrj okn dh fMØh i‘pkrorhZ okn esa diV ds vk/kkj ij vikLr dh xbZ & iwoZrj okn iqu#Tthfor gks tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1931 iVuk 204] , vkb vkj 1955 vklke 231 rFkk , vkb 1957 enzkl 512 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 16
S.K. Dubey, J.--1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree which set aside the ex parte decree dated 29.3.76, for eviction, as obtained by fraud, passed in civil suit No. 121-N76 by Civil Judge Class-II, Lahar.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are thus: Landlord Naraindas and his son Balkrishan instituted a civil suit against the respondent/tenant for ejectment and arrears of rent of Rs. 600/- and mesne profits alleging therein that the respondent is a tenant in the suit accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-, who has defaulted in making payment of rent due inspite of notice of demand and has not handed over the possession of the accommodation after the termination of the tenancy. The Court ordered to issue summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A/D Post (R.A.D.) specifying the date of appearance as 19.9.72. The summons (Ext. P-3) without the seal of the Court and a copy of the plaint was issued on 12.9.72 for sending it by R.AD. which was delivered at the post office on 19.9.72. This R.AD. envelope (Ext. P-4) was delivered to the tenant on 23.9.72. A" the summons was not received back on the date fixed, i.e., on 19.9.72, the Court adjourned the case to 30.9.72 awaiting service. On 30.9.72 too service was not received back, hence, the case was adjourned to 18.10.72, on that date the Presiding Officer was on leave, the Court Reader recorded in the proceeding that notice after R.AD, service has been received, and fixed the case for orders on 19.10.72. The Presiding Officer accepted the service and ordered to proceed ex parte. After recording ex parte evidence the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved of that landlord preferred an appeal No. 32/73, of which notice was issued to the tenant. Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the appellant/landlord to prove notice of termination of the tenancy. The appellate Court while remitting the case neither directed the tenant to appear in the suit nor appointed any date for appearance of the parties to the suit before the Court, to which the case was remitted. After remand the Court after re-registering the suit ordered issue of summons to the parties to the suit, fixing the date as 24.2.1976 for appearance but, of this date no summons was issued. On 24.2.76 the counsel of the landlord appeared, then, the Court fixed the case for recording of ex parte evidence on 18.3.76 observing that the tenant is already proceeded ex parte. The Court after recording of ex parte evidence passed a decree on 29.3.1976 for eviction and arrears of rent.
3. The aforesaid decree was put in execution. Having received the notice the tenant instituted a civil suit No. 87/80 (Old No. 41/78) in the Court of Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Lahar, against the landlord for setting aside the ex parte decree, as obtained by fraud by the plaintiffs misleading the Court by suppressing the fact of non-service of summons so as to keep the defendant in ignorance of the suit and deprive him of his legitimate right to defend the suit. The landlord challenged the maintinability of the suit contending that the tenant having not applied under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. the suit is not maintainable, as no fraud was practised on Court, mere irregularity of service in summons is no ground for setting aside the ex parte decree, as the defendant had the knowledge of the suit after service of summons by R.A.D., and was also noticed in appeal. The trial Court after appreciating the material and evidence adduced by the parties negatived the defence of the landlord and passed the decree dated 20.11.80 setting aside the ex parte decree as obtained by fraud. Against this the landlord/defendant preferred an appeal No.100-N80 which was dismissed on 11.9.1982 by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind.
4. Against this decree the second appeal was admitted on the following substantial ques
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
