Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Advance Recall Petition Before Argument for Fraud - Several cases demonstrate that courts can entertain a petition to recall or set aside judgments or orders if fraud is played upon the court, even before the court proceeds to argument or final judgment. The inherent power under Section 151 CPC allows courts to recall orders obtained by fraud ["M/S. EXCLUSIVE MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS MR. SAPAN MOHAN GARG - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"], ["Most. Nunu Devi, W/o Late Ramtanuk Singh, R/o village - Ratanpur Municipal Area, P.S. and District-Begusarai vs Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Kari Singh both residents of village - Ratanpur, Ward No. 9, within Municipal Area - Begusarai, District - Begusarai - Patna"], ["PELLETI GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY VS LAND REFORMS TRIBUNAL (ADDITIONAL REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), NELLORE - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Jumman VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Main Points and Insights:
The principle that fraud unravels everything is reiterated, empowering courts to intervene and recall judgments if fraud is proven or strongly suspected ["RAM GOPAL AND 3 OTHERS vs RATAN CHANDRA JAIN AND 10 OTHERS - Allahabad"], ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["M/S. EXCLUSIVE MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS MR. SAPAN MOHAN GARG - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"]- ["Most. Nunu Devi, W/o Late Ramtanuk Singh, R/o village - Ratanpur Municipal Area, P.S. and District-Begusarai vs Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Kari Singh both residents of village - Ratanpur, Ward No. 9, within Municipal Area - Begusarai, District - Begusarai - Patna"]- ["Smt. Omi Rajak and Ors. vs Munna Rajak - Patna"]- ["Asha Ram VS Pushkarna Brahmin Bhimji Ka Mohala - Rajasthan"]- ["The Chief Secretary vs Anjuman Islamia Trust/Wakf - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Sarabjit Singh VS Gurpal Kaur - Delhi"]- ["Emars Mining And Construction Pvt. Ltd. VS Manjunath Hebbar - Calcutta"]- ["ROMI GARG Vs BDR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS - Delhi"]- ["Anita VS R. Rambilas - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["K. Eswaraiah VS Bagadi Ganesh - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Aman Kumar @ Aman Agrawal VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["RAM GOPAL AND 3 OTHERS vs RATAN CHANDRA JAIN AND 10 OTHERS - Allahabad"]- ["Jumman VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]
In civil litigation, discovering fraud by the opposing party—especially the plaintiff—can turn the tide of a case. But can you advance a recall petition before it's filed before argument for finding fraud played by the plaintiff? This question strikes at the heart of procedural fairness under the Indian Civil Procedure Code (CPC). If an order or proceeding seems tainted by misrepresentation or deceit, parties often seek to recall it pre-trial to prevent injustice.
This blog explores the legal framework, procedures, and judicial insights on filing pre-trial recall petitions alleging plaintiff fraud. Drawing from established CPC provisions and case law, we'll break down when such petitions may succeed, supported by prima facie evidence. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
Fraud allegations are grave and require careful handling. Courts demand prima facie proof before entertaining challenges, ensuring claims aren't reckless. As per legal precedents, a party must establish reasonable suspicion of fraud, not conclusive proof at the outset. MUTHAVARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO VS N. SUBBARAO - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 52
In government-related suits, Section 80 CPC mandates a two-month notice, highlighting their special nature. Shahzada Iqbal VS State of J. & K. - 2023 0 Supreme(J&K) 9 Fraud can vitiate orders obtained through misrepresentation, opening doors to recall under inherent court powers.
Other cases reinforce this: In one instance, a trial court recorded findings on fraud in substitution orders due to wrong death dates furnished by the plaintiff. Smt. Omi Rajak and Ors. vs Munna Rajak Similarly, applications for recalling compromise decrees have been filed alleging unauthorized settlements and fraud on the court. NARENDER KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS. Vs PRADEEP GUPTA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46467
Recall petitions aim to set aside orders procured by fraud, distinct from appeals. They are typically interlocutory or pre-trial, filed to rectify early procedural missteps.
Key provisions include:- Order 23 Rule 1(4)(b) CPC: Allows withdrawal with liberty to recall if based on fraud or misrepresentation. Pardeep Singh VS Krishna Rani - 2010 0 Supreme(P&H) 2586- Section 151 CPC: Grants courts inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. Pardeep Singh VS Krishna Rani - 2010 0 Supreme(P&H) 2586
Courts exercise discretion if prima facie fraud is shown, scrutinizing evidence to avoid delays. Timing is crucial—petitions are generally viable before trial or final judgment to halt tainted proceedings.
To succeed, petitioners must:- Demonstrate prima facie proof of fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation.- Avoid reckless allegations, backed by credible evidence. Muthavarpu Venkateswara Rao VS N. Subbarao - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 51
Judicial precedents affirm:- Parties can move civil courts for regular trial on fraud grounds once prima facie case is made. MUTHAVARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO VS N. SUBBARAO - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 52Muthavarpu Venkateswara Rao VS N. Subbarao - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 51- Courts must prevent fraudulent orders from standing, as in Manindra Chandra v. Low and Co. (AIR 1924 Cal 796), where stay was refused amid fraud evidence. Muthavarpu Venkateswara Rao VS N. Subbarao - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 51- C. D. Gopinath v. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (ILR (1980) 1 Mad 184) stressed the prima facie test for fraud objections. MUTHAVARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO VS N. SUBBARAO - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 52
From additional sources:- In a compromise decree recall, fraud was alleged via unauthorized settlements. NARENDER KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS. Vs PRADEEP GUPTA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46467- Second appeals invoked Section 17 of the Limitation Act for fraud discovery, allowing 3 years from detection. H.R. Ravichandra, S/o Late Rajashekar Reddy vs Shanthamma, D/o Late B.N. Srinivasa Since Deceased - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439000- Forgery in appointments led to domestic enquiries revealing fraud. Managing Committee, Madarsa Mofidul Islam VS State of Bihar - 2024 Supreme(Pat) 501
Third parties may challenge consent decrees or Lok Adalat awards if fraud is prima facie evident, as in cases excluding parties from quick settlements. Kusumbai VS Bhausaheb - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 738Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) VS Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 970
Filing a pre-trial recall petition involves these general steps:1. Prepare Application: File under Section 151 CPC or Order 23, detailing fraud with prima facie evidence.2. Attach Evidence: Include documents showing misrepresentation, like forged certificates or concealed facts. Smt. Omi Rajak and Ors. vs Munna Rajak3. Serve Notice: Oppose party gets hearing opportunity.4. Court Evaluation: Judge assesses evidence strength and proceeding stage.5. Possible Outcomes: Recall, modification, or further inquiry/trial if fraud is probable.
In execution cases, concealed partitions have been raised as fraud grounds, though parties must prove nullity. Laxmi Devi VS State of U. P.
Courts are cautious:- Reckless Claims: Baseless allegations invite scrutiny of motive. Muthavarpu Venkateswara Rao VS N. Subbarao - 1984 0 Supreme(AP) 51- Timing: Best pre-judgment; post-decree remedies differ (e.g., appeals under Section 96 CPC for third parties affected by compromises). Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (Momin) VS Shia Imami Ismaili Momin Jamat Samaj - 2019 Supreme(Guj) 970- Writ Jurisdiction: Disputed facts like fraud often require civil suits, not writs. Magadh Spun Pipes Limited through its Director Subash Abhimanu Singh VS State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 333
In SARFAESI cases, fraud via fake deeds needs factual adjudication in appropriate forums. Magadh Spun Pipes Limited through its Director Subash Abhimanu Singh VS State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 333
Pre-trial recall petitions alleging plaintiff fraud are feasible under CPC if supported by prima facie evidence, leveraging Section 151 and Order 23. Courts prioritize justice, rectifying fraud early while guarding against abuse.
Key Takeaways:- Establish prima facie fraud with credible evidence.- File promptly before trial for best chances.- Use inherent powers judiciously.- Third parties have avenues against tainted decrees.
This mechanism upholds fairness, but success hinges on evidence quality. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your case, as outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction.
It is further submitted that the manner in which these additional documents have been filed by the appellant would amount to a ‘fraud’ and thus the application for recall moved by the applicant be allowed and the judgment dated 24.09.2025 be recalled. 8. ... Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the judgment dated 24.09.2025, has been passed by this appellate tribunal on the basis of a mistake which has erupted by the fraud played by the appellant. 4. ... Counsel appearing for the non- applic....
Review Petition RP(C) No. 2437 of 2016 filed by the petitioners. ... They took a second attempt by alleging fraud and filing a recall application. The alleged fraud not having been proved but merely alleged does not make a ground to recall the impugned judgment and decree. ... On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/opposite parties vehemently denied any kind of fraud played by them in obtaining the judgment passed in F.A. ... More so, ....
on record supporting the fact of fraud played by the plaintiff has come to the conclusion that no fraud has been played by the plaintiff. ... The trial court has recorded specific finding regarding the fraud played by the plaintiff in obtaining the order of substitution by furnishing the wrong date of death. ... by the plaintiff in his petition for substitution. ... T....
Once this Court has reached to a conclusion that the plaintiff played fraud upon the Court, the issue now would be whether the order obtained by the plaintiff by playing a fraud can be recalled by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 151, CPC ? ... Before venturing into the above issues, this Court is first required to reach to a finding as to whether a fraud has been acted upon the Court or not ? ... Meaning thereby, the plaintiff was very....
The argument of learned President’s Counsel that the District Judge came to the firm finding that there was no fraud is also not correct. ... As I stated before, when fraud is alleged, there is no difference between the old procedure and the new procedure. In any event, the plaintiff did not file this action seeking to recall letters of administration. ... The plaintiff filed the instant action against the six defendants including the aforemention....
It is unrealistic to expect the appellant Company to resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the fraud because the appellant Company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the claimants. ... The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on court. ... The brief facts for the purpose of present petition are that a suit was filed on....
This argument of the counsel for the appellant appeared attractive at the first blush but was found meritless because of two reasons; firstly, the courts usually look at the passport size photograph affixed on the first page of the petition and not marriage photographs filed along with the petition and ... It was also averred that mutual consent of the parties was not obtained by force, fraud or undue influence and the said petition was not preferred by them in collusion with each othe....
After the compromise decree was passed, Applicant filed the present application for recall of the decree on the ground that fraud was played on him and the Court in obtaining the compromise decree as he had neither authorized Atul Gupta to enter into the compromise nor signed the terms of any settlement ... This application is filed on behalf of Applicant/Plaintiff No.5 Sh. Sushil Gupta for recall of judgment and decree dated 19.09.2006 passed on an application under....
The present writ petition had been filed challenging that notice. ... It is,. therefore, open for the Tribunal, when it is convinced prima facie on the basis of the affidavit of the Authorised Officer that fraud has been played, to reopen the case and to recall the order made by it. ... There, the learned judge upheld and objection to a review petition filed to review an order under the Act only on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of 30....
The counsel would vehemently contend that when the appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court, nothing is stated with regard to the fraud played as argued before this Court. ... is concerned and for the first time, that too in the second appeal, argument is made before this Court about the fraud. ... Now, the counsel would vehemently contend that Section 17 of the Limitation Act attracts for filing of the appeal and 3 years from the date of discovery of the fraud played....
4. The problem in the Madarsa arose when the private respondent no.7 got himself appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Molvi) on 18.05.2013 by playing fraud and forgery upon the then Managing Committee. The fraud and forgery of the private respondent came into light when on 04.01. A domestic enquiry was conducted by three members enquiry committee on the directions of the Managing Committee and it was found that the private respondent had got initial education from the Madarsa in question and he had passed Wastania examination of Bihar State Madarsa Education Board from the Madarsa in ....
In case of Banwari Lal Vs. Chando Devi and Anr., reported in (1993) 1 SCC 581, the subordinate Court had passed the decree on the basis of an alleged compromise entered into between the parties. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application to recall the order disposing of the suit on the ground that his Advocate had played fraud with him. The subordinate Court recalled the said order and restored the suit, considering various facts and circumstances, including the fact that the compromise petition was not signed by both the parties. The said order was challenged by the d....
5 to 7 and brought the documents namely the two transfer deeds and the alleged lease deed on record, but having not done so, the petitioner left with no option, has filed the instant writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application on 30th April, 2019 before the Respondent No. 2 for recall of the order on account of the fraud played by the Respondent Nos. The ground agitated in the writ petition is that since the entire property, the subject matter of the dispute, was under control, possession and legal ownership of the Official Liquidator of Hon’ble Kolka....
All of them were parties to the earlier RCS No.447/2000. The entire family as appearing in the family tree was before the Civil Court. On the said date, the suit was compromised with reference to the properties mentioned above. Prima facie, a fraud is played by the Plaintiff and the Defendants on these Petitioners.
The said revision has been dismissed summarily by this Court vide order dated 24.9.2010. Before this Court, the petitioner pleaded that certain fraud has been committed by the plaintiff.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
