1. Dispute over land ownership and acquisition compensation — Allegation of fraud in obtaining a sole-ownership decree and subsequent compensation orders — Challenge to High Court and Supreme Court orders. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023
With
Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 673 of 2023 With MA No. 1737 of 2023 in MA 255 of 2023 in C.A. No. 636 of 2022, With CONMT. PET. (C) No. 23-24 of 2024 in W.P. (C) No. 673 of 2023 With Diary No(s). 6013 of 2024 With SMC (C) No. 3 of 2024
Decided on : 23-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mrs. M.b.ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv. Mr. Suvigya Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Raj, Adv. Mr. Vivek Joshi, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Ms. Saloni Meshram, Adv. Ms. Sneha Deorao Balapure, Adv. Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Adv. M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mrs. M.b.ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, AOR By Courts Motion, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mrs. Sanskruti Samal, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Abhinav Singh, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sameer Jain, Adv. Mr. Suvigya Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Deepesh Raj, Adv. Mr. Vivek Joshi, Adv. Mr. Soayib Qureshi, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Ms. Saloni Meshram, Adv. Ms. Sneha Deorao Balapure, Adv. Mr. Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Thapa, Adv. M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR
The judgment reaffirms that 'fraud unravels everything,' establishing that any judicial order obtained through fraud is a nullity. It holds that fraud is an exception to the doctrine of merger, permitting the recall of orders, including those of the Supreme Court, if procured via deception and concealment of material facts.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 32, 129, 300-A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rules 9 and 10, Order XIV Rule 2, Order XLVII; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Order LV Rule 6; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, 6, 18, 24; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24; Land Revenue Act, 1996 - Section 34.
(B) Legal principles - "Fraud unravels everything" is a cardinal principle, whereby judgments and orders procured by fraud are void ab initio (Paras 1-5, 61); non-joinder of necessary parties in writ proceedings affecting their rights vitiates the order for breach of natural justice (Paras 43-46); maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 requires a clear pleading of violation of Fundamental Rights (Paras 66-81); doctrine of merger applies to appellate orders but is subject to exceptions including fraud, public interest and incomplete adjudication (Paras 90-124). (Paras 101-123)
Facts of the case:
The dispute involves competing claims over co-owned land acquired by a development authority. Initially jointly owned by three parties, one party obtained a compromise decree asserting sole ownership by allegedly suppressing prior joint ownership and misusing a cancelled Power of Attorney. The sole owner claim was accepted by the High Court and partly upheld by this Court in compensation matters. The aggrieved co-owner challenged these orders alleging fraud and sought fresh adjudication and re-determination of compensation, alongside remedies for fraud on court and non-disclosure of material facts (Paras 6-11, 38-49).
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32; applicability of doctrine of merger; whether fraud was played on courts by misrepresentation and suppression of facts; entitlement to challenge final orders procured by fraud; forum shopping allegations; appropriate remedies in light of established fraud (Paras 29-31).
Findings of Court:
The Court found that fraud had been committed by the respondent in obtaining the sole ownership decree and compensation orders by non-joinder of parties and suppression of material facts, including fabricated documents and unauthorized pleadings. The High Court and this Court’s previous orders were vitiated by fraud and lacked legal sanctity. The writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable as Fundamental Rights were not shown violated but the civil appeal challenging the impugned orders was maintainable. Doctrine of merger did not bar the appeal where fraud was established. Procedural technicalities cannot bar justice in cases of fraud. The Court recalled and set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matters to the High Court for fresh adjudication with all proper parties impleaded. Interim orders restraining alienation of assets and securities furnished were continued (Paras 37-64, 69-81, 84-130, 144-148).
Ratio Decidendi: Judgments and orders obtained by fraud are nullities and can be impeached at any stage (Paras 1-5, 60-64); non-joinder of parties whose rights are affected in writ proceedings breaches natural justice and vitiates orders (Paras 43-47); writ jurisdiction under Article 32 requires meaningful pleading of fundamental rights infringement (Paras 66-81); doctrine of merger does not preclude interference with fraudulent orders or remedies by non-parties prejudiced by such orders (Paras 90-124). Consequently, the Court exercised inherent powers to set aside orders obtained by fraud and allowed fresh adjudication (Paras 144-148).
Result: Civil appeal and connected applications allowed; impugned order dated 28th October, 2021 and earlier judgment dated 5th May, 2022 declared null and void and recalled; writ petition dismissed; matter remanded to High Court for fresh determination with proper parties impleaded; interim orders continued; costs borne by parties.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The case involves a dispute over co-owned land acquired by a development authority, with allegations of fraud and misrepresentation affecting the ownership and proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
-
The primary legal principles established include that judgments obtained through fraud are void ab initio and can be challenged at any stage, and non-joinder of necessary parties breaches natural justice, vitiating orders (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court found that fraud had been committed by the respondent in obtaining decrees and orders, including suppression of material facts, fabricated documents, and unauthorized pleadings, which tainted the legitimacy of prior judgments (!) (!) (!) .
-
Orders procured by fraud are considered nullities and do not have legal sanctity; they can be impeached at any time, and the doctrine of merger does not apply where fraud is established (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court emphasized that procedural irregularities or technicalities cannot be used to shield fraudulent acts, and the Court has inherent powers to set aside such orders to uphold justice (!) (!) (!) .
-
The case highlights that suppression of material facts, especially those that could influence the merits, invalidates the orders obtained by concealment or deception. Reddy's failure to disclose ongoing suits and other relevant facts was deemed fraudulent conduct (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court clarified that the doctrine of merger has limited applicability and exceptions, particularly when orders are obtained by fraud. Orders tainted by fraud do not merge and remain open to challenge (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court rejected the argument that the impugned order had merged into the final order of the Court, holding that fraud vitiates the entire order and that the orders obtained by Reddy are invalid (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court also addressed procedural issues, affirming that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice and can be relaxed or overridden in cases of fraud to prevent miscarriage of justice (!) (!) (!) .
-
The Court dismissed the contention that the writ petition was not maintainable due to lack of violation of Fundamental Rights, as the core grievance was related to property rights and procedural fairness, not fundamental rights directly (!) (!) .
-
The Court clarified that a writ under Article 32 is not maintainable when no fundamental rights are violated, and orders of courts cannot be challenged in a writ petition unless there is a breach of fundamental rights or natural justice (!) (!) .
-
The Court rejected the argument that the civil appeal was not maintainable due to merger, emphasizing that orders obtained through fraud do not merge and can be challenged at any time (!) (!) .
-
The Court noted that the proceedings initiated by Vishnu, including civil suits, writ petitions, review applications, and contempt petitions, were part of a broader effort to challenge fraudulent orders and seek justice (!) (!) .
-
Ultimately, the Court set aside the impugned orders, declared them null and void due to fraud, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with all relevant parties properly impleaded. It also reaffirmed that orders procured by fraud are always subject to challenge and do not possess legal sanctity (!) (!) .
-
The Court exercised its inherent powers to recall and set aside previous judgments and orders obtained through fraudulent conduct, emphasizing that procedural laws cannot be used to perpetuate fraud or injustice (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this case.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Fraud vitiates all proceedings — Doctrine of merger precludes appeal — Maintainability of writ petition under Article 32 — Procedural bars under Supreme Court Rules. (Para 21 , 24 , 26 , 28 )
3. Fraudulent suppression of material facts and non-joinder of necessary parties vitiate judicial orders — Doctrine of merger is not absolute and yields to proven fraud. (Para 37 , 39 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 60 , 64 , 107 , 123 )
4. Fraud unravels everything — Judgments obtained by fraud are nullities — Fraud constitutes an exception to the doctrine of merger and the finality of litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 61 , 107 )
5. High Court and Supreme Court orders set aside — Writ petition remanded for fresh adjudication with all interested parties impleaded — Interim securities maintained. (Para 144 , 145 )
6. What is the legal effect of a judgment or order obtained by playing fraud on the court?
A judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such orders can be challenged in any court, at any time, and are not protected by the principle of finality of litigation. (Para 2 , 61 )
7. Does the doctrine of merger prevent a party from challenging a lower court's order after it has been affirmed by a superior court?
Generally, yes, but fraud is a recognized exception. If an order was obtained by fraud, it is vitiated and cannot be protected by the doctrine of merger, allowing the aggrieved party to challenge the original order. (Para 107 , 123 , 124 )
8. When is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution maintainable?
It is maintainable only when there is a prima facie violation or imminent threat of violation of a Fundamental Right. General allegations of arbitrariness or violation of statutory rights without specific pleadings of fundamental right breaches are insufficient. (Para 68 , 70 , 75 , 80 )
9. Can procedural rules prevent a court from exercising jurisdiction to correct a fraud?
No. Procedural laws are handmaids to justice and not obstructions. Inherent powers of the court can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process and ensure justice, especially when the court itself has been a victim of fraud. (Para 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 )
10. What is the effect of failing to implead a necessary party in a writ petition?
An order passed in a writ petition that adversely affects the interests of a party not arrayed as a respondent can be invalidated on the grounds of breach of natural justice. (Para 42 , 44 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
| INDEX |
| INTRODUCTION |
| FACTS |
| IMPUGNED ORDER |
| BEFORE THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 3636-37 OF 2022 |
| CONTENTIONS |
| ARGUMENTS BY VISHNU |
| ARGUMENTS BY REDDY |
| ARGUMENTS BY NOIDA |
| REPLY BY VISHNU REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO MAINTAINABILITY |
| ISSUES |
| ANALYSIS |
| I. HAS REDDY PLAYED FRAUD ON THE COURTS? |
| II. MAINTAINABILITY |
| A. MAINTAINABILITY OF THE WRIT PETITION |
| B. MAINTAINABILITY OF CIVIL APPEAL/JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT |
| INTRA-COURT APPEAL |
| MERGER |
| PROCEDURE, IF AN IMPEDIMENT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION |
| C. VISHNU PURSUING THE CIVIL APPEAL AS WELL AS THE REVIEW PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION/RECALL, SIMULTANEOUSLY |
| D. FORUM SHOPPING |
| CONCLUSION |
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 design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another: a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. The opening paragraph of such decision reads as follows:
“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree — by the first court or by the highest court — has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
This Court then warned that:
5. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property- grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
3. “Fraud unravels everything” was famously said by Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley , (1956) 1 Q.B. 702, emphasising that fraud can invalidate judgments, contracts and all transactions. The principle highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal proceedings and transactions. However, it is a cardinal principle of law that fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Order VI Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19084[ CPC ] may be referred to ordaining that particulars, inter alia, of fraud have to be stated in the pleadings.
4. From the multiple decisions of this Court on ‘fraud’, what follows is that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, the legislature never intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is unravelled.
5. The issue of fraud unravelling everything is pertinent here due to the nature of dispute we are tasked to adjudicate; hence, its reference at the beginning of our judgment.
6. The primary parties involved in these proceedings are the appellant-writ petitioner-applicant, Vishnu Var
