The court upheld the doctrine of merger, ruling that prior judgments cannot be recalled based on unsubstantiated fraud claims, emphasizing the need for legal representation in court proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Hiralal Shah, the party-in-person, the petitioner herein, who is seeking to challenge the order dated 8.9.2022 passed by the Commercial Court in Commercial Misc. Application No. 3 of 2019, which has been filed under Sections 141 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . A perusal of the application at Page-30 of the paper-book indicates that the petitioner has sought the following reliefs before the Commercial Court:

"30. The Applicant therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this commercial Misc. Civil Application in the interest of justice and for the end of justice.

(b) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Commercial Misc. Civil Application by Recall the judgment / Order dated 24/11/2014 and 27/04/2015 passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 1042 of 2015 in First Appeal 3136 of 2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on the ground of obtained by fraud and misrepresentation before the Hon'ble High Court, because the said bank Instruments have not 'Lost in Transist' but fraudulently Stop the Payments.

(c) Treated as nullity and set aside the impugned judgment dated 24/11/2014 and order dated 27/04/2015 passed in Misc. Civil Application 1042 of 2015 in First Appeal No. 3136 of 2011 on the ground that the said judgment and order have obtained by Suppression of material facts, misrepresentation and fraud by the opponent.

(d) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this commercial Civil Misc. Application and to reverse the judgment and decree exhibit 258 and 259 dated 30/03/2011 passed in Sp. Civil Suit No. 202 of 2001 and allow the suit of the applicant/plaintiff prayed for with the costs of all courts in the interest of justice and for the end of justice.

(e) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass and just and proper order in the facts and circumstance of the case. And for this act of kindness and justice, the applicant shall as in duty bound for every pray".

2. The facts disclosed in the application and noted by the Commercial Court while rejecting the application vide judgment and order dated 8.9.2022 are relevant to be noted hereinunder.

3. We may record that the petitioner herein had filed a Special Summary Suit No. 202 of 2001 for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,08,10,040/- from HDFC Bank, Vadodara, on the ground that they have illegally and fraudulently stopped the payment of the Bank's instrument after the same was delivered to the applicant-plaintiff. Be that as it may, the said suit has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2014. On a First Appeal No. 3136 of 2011 filed by the petitioner before this Court, the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2011 has attained finality with the dismissal of the First Appeal by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2014. It seems that a recall/ review application vide Misc. Civil Application No. 1042 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner which has also been dismissed on 27.4.2015. In the mean time, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2011 of dismissal of the suit and the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2014 of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the petitioner herein had approached the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 7092 of 2014, which has also been dismissed on 16.3.2015 with the following order:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material.

We do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The special leave petition is dismissed."

4. We may note that the application seeking for recall of the judgment and order dated 24.11.2014 passed by this Court in the First Appeal No. 3136 of 2011 has been filed before the Commercial Court on the ground of the said judgment having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation upon the High Court. The prayer was also ma