2014 Supreme(MP) 682
S.K.GANGELE, SUSHIL KUMAR PALO
Chief Municipal Officer – Appellant
Versus
Mahila Munni Devi – Respondent
Judgement Key Points
- The court adopted a liberal, justice-oriented approach to condoning the seven-year and 84-day delay, emphasizing that courts must remove injustice rather than legalize it (!) .
- The terms of "sufficient cause" for delay condonation are elastic and must be applied based on the specific facts of the situation (!) .
- Substantial justice is paramount, and technical considerations should not receive undue emphasis (!) .
- While no presumption of deliberate delay exists, gross negligence by counsel or litigants is noted, and lack of bona fides is a significant factor (!) (!) .
- The court distinguished between inordinate delay (attracting the doctrine of prejudice) and short delays, applying a strict approach to the former and a liberal one to the latter (!) .
- The conduct and attitude of the party regarding their inaction or negligence are relevant factors in weighing the balance of justice (!) .
- If the explanation for delay is concocted or grounds are fanciful, the court remains vigilant to protect the other side (!) .
- It is a settled principle that no one escapes the consequences of fraud or misrepresentation by relying on technicalities of law (!) .
- Since the compromise was filed without the required permission from the Municipal Council and granted illegal ownership rights, it was deemed void ab initio and illegal (!) (!) .
- Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines fraud to include false suggestions, active concealment, and acts fitted to deceive (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- A judgment or order obtained by fraud is considered a nullity and can be challenged in any court at any time (!) (!) (!) .
- As stated by Lord Denning, no judgment or order can stand if obtained by fraud (!) .
- The distinction exists between a court being "mistaken" (which cannot impeach a judgment) and being "misled" by trickery (which allows setting aside the judgment) (!) .
- The principle that "fraud and justice never dwell together" means that fraudulent acts vitiate all judicial proceedings (!) .
- Fraud involves deliberate deception to secure unfair benefits, and the principle of finality of litigation cannot be used as an engine of oppression for dishonest litigants (!) .
- Courts have inherent powers to recall judgments or orders obtained by fraud on the court or a party (!) .
- Given that the compromise was obtained through fraud involving the Municipal Council, the review petition was allowed, the previous order was recalled, and the case was restored to file (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A.No.4630/2013, an application for condonation of delay.
2. There is delay of seven years and 84 days in filing the present review petition.
3. It is pleaded in the application for condonation of delay that an application for compromise was filed on behalf of Municipal Council, however, no permission was taken from the Council in regard to compromise, hence, the Council was not aware about the fact of compromise. The President and CMO of the Council were hand in gloves, they did not inform the Council about the judgment. After seven years, contempt proceedings were initiated and the contempt case was registered as Cont. Case No.497/2013. Thereafter, notices were issued. Council received notice on 27.8.2013, then it came to the knowledge of the Council. Thereafter, certified copy of the judgment was obtained and review petition has been filed.
4. In the present case, there was no permission to enter into compromise by the Municipal Council. Apart from this, by way of compromise, right of ownership in regard to a land, which was of the ownership of the Municipal Council, was created in favour of the respondent. The compromise was void ab initio and is per se illegal.
5
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
