Orders obtained through fraud are nullities and cannot be sustained, warranting reevaluation in court.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

INDEX ....................................................................................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................

FACTS 6 ............................................................................................................................................................

IMPUGNED ORDER 20 ...................................................................................

BEFORE THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 3636-37 OF 2022 22 ..................................................................................................................................................................

CONTENTIONS 24 ..............................................................................................................................................

ARGUMENTS BY VISHNU 24 ................................................................................................................................................

ARGUMENTS BY REDDY 25 .............................................................................................................................................

ARGUMENTS BY NOIDA 28 ............................................................................

REPLY BY VISHNU REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO MAINTAINABILITY 29 ................................................................................................................................................................................

ISSUES 29 ...........................................................................................................................................................................

ANALYSIS 30 .....................................................................................................

I. HAS REDDY PLAYED FRAUD ON THE COURTS? 33 .....................................................................................................................................................

II. MAINTAINABILITY 47 .....................................................................................................

A. MAINTAINABILITY OF THE WRIT PETITION 47 ............................................

B. MAINTAINABILITY OF CIVIL APPEAL/JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT 56 ........................................................................................................................................

INTRA-COURT APPEAL 56 ...............................................................................................................................................................

MERGER 59 .........................................................................

PROCEDURE, IF AN IMPEDIMENT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION 76 C. VISHNU PURSUING THE CIVIL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE REVIEW PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR ............................................................................................................

MODIFICATION/RECALL, SIMULTANEOUSLY 78 ......................................................................................................................................

D. FORUM SHOPPING 81 ....................................................................................................................................................................

CONCLUSION 82 INTRODUCTION

1. In Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh , [(2017) 4 SCC 1], a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphatically asserted “… stated simply, nothing … nothing … and nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything.”

2. At the end of the last century, this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.

Jagannath, [(1994) 1 SCC 1] noticed the growing trend of abuse of the process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts. Fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the d