Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 6644
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, J
VISHNU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7777/2023 | W.P. (C) No. 673/2023 | MA No. 1737/2023 in MA 255/2023 in C.A. No. 3636/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [List not provided]
For the Respondents: [List not provided]
Orders obtained through fraud are nullities and cannot be sustained, warranting reevaluation in court.
Headnote:Fraud unravels everything, as asserted in various judgments including Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, emphasizing that any orders obtained through fraudulent means are void ab initio. The appellant alleged that the respondent engaged in fraudulent conduct by misrepresenting his ownership rights of land in proceedings without disclosing relevant prior disputes with co-owners. The court found the impugned order and related judgments procured through fraud to lack legal validity. The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh determination of ownership, compensation, and additional parties were ordered to beimpleaded for a fair hearing.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
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
