Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Fraudulent orders and judgments are null and void - Courts consistently recognize that any order, decree, or judgment obtained by playing fraud upon the court is considered a nullity and non-est in law. Such orders are inherently invalid and can be challenged at any time, including through collateral proceedings or by filing a separate suit to set aside the decree ["Surat Singh now deceased through LR VS Gram Panchayat of Village Gumar - Punjab and Haryana"], ["R. Chandrasekaran vs Ganesan - Madras"], ["SMTI NIVA BANIKYA vs RUMI BANIK - Gauhati"], ["Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin @ Shaik Moinuddin @ Mohd.Moinuddin @ Mohd. Karim - Telangana"].
Right to challenge and set aside fraudulent decrees - If a party discovers that a decree was obtained by fraud, they have the legal right to seek its nullification. This can be done either by filing a fresh suit seeking to set aside the fraudulent order or through collateral proceedings. The courts have the inherent power under Section 151 CPC to recall or set aside orders obtained by fraud ["Surat Singh now deceased through LR VS Gram Panchayat of Village Gumar - Punjab and Haryana"], ["SMTI NIVA BANIKYA vs RUMI BANIK - Gauhati"], ["Syed Mohammed Lateefuddin vs Sofy Moinuddin Moin @ Shaik Moinuddin @ Mohd.Moinuddin @ Mohd. Karim - Telangana"], ["The Chief Secretary vs Anjuman Islamia Trust/Wakf - Madhya Pradesh"].
Filing a separate suit for fraud is permissible – When allegations of fraud are first made, and there is no evidence on record, the proper remedy is to file a separate suit seeking to declare the decree or order as null and void due to fraud. The law explicitly permits this, and such suits are not barred by limitation if fraud is alleged and proved ["SMTI NIVA BANIKYA vs RUMI BANIK - Gauhati"], ["The Chief Secretary vs Anjuman Islamia Trust/Wakf - Madhya Pradesh"], ["SMT GANGAMMA v/s SRI Y CHANDRAGUPTA - Karnataka"].
Order XXIII Rule 3A and limitations - The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC applies only to suits challenging the legality of the terms of a compromise, not to suits seeking to set aside decrees obtained by playing fraud. When fraud is pleaded, courts are obliged to decide on the issue, and proceedings are not barred ["Thandavarayan vs Dhanalakshmi - Madras"], ["2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.12.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN CRP (PD) No.2692 - Madras"].
Fraud vitiates the entire process – Judgments or decrees obtained through fraud are considered void, and courts have the power to set them aside. This applies whether the fraud is by collusion, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts. The principle is well established that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law ["Surat Singh now deceased through LR VS Gram Panchayat of Village Gumar - Punjab and Haryana"], ["R.Chandrasekaran vs Madhu - Madras"], ["Raj Kumar VS Samphal, S/o. Sh. Tirhu - Himachal Pradesh"], ["SMTI NIVA BANIKYA vs RUMI BANIK - Gauhati"], ["The Chief Secretary vs Anjuman Islamia Trust/Wakf - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Thandavarayan vs Dhanalakshmi - Madras"].
Specific cases and remedies – Parties can approach the court with a suit for setting aside a decree obtained by fraud, even after a long period, as there is no limitation for such suits if fraud is involved. The courts have repeatedly held that the proper course is to file a separate suit to challenge the order or decree based on fraud, which may include seeking to declare the order void ab initio ["Nagendra Rajak, S/o. Late Mahabir Rajak VS Khokhani Devi, D/o. Late Chhathu Rajak @ Dhobi, and W/o. Nathu Rajak - Jharkhand"], ["2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.12.2021 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN CRP (PD) No.2692 - Madras"], ["H. Muni Reddy S/o Late Munivenkatappa vs K.N. Muniyappa Reddy S/o Late Hosa Reddigara Nanjappa - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Yes, you can pray to set aside the fraudulent order in your case. Courts recognize the fundamental principle that any order obtained by playing fraud on the court is void and can be challenged at any time. If the other party has obtained an order through fraud, you should file a suit specifically seeking to declare that order null and void. The courts have the inherent power to set aside such orders, and doing so is consistent with the legal doctrine that fraud vitiates all proceedings.
In the heat of litigation, discovering that the opposing party has obtained a court order through fraud can feel like a devastating blow. Imagine filing your suit first, only for the defendant to counter with another suit where they secure an order by misrepresentation or collusion. The burning question arises: I filed suit then defendant also filed another suit by playing fraud obtained order, can I now pray to set aside the fraudulent order in my case?
The short answer is yes—under Indian law, courts wield inherent powers to nullify such orders. This blog post dives deep into the legal principles, landmark cases, procedures, and practical steps, drawing from established precedents. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Fraud on the court undermines the justice system's integrity. It differs from fraud on a party; the former involves deception directly on the judicial process, rendering the order a nullity—void from the beginning (non est). As held in key judgments, fraud unravels everything and fraud vitiates all judicial acts Tazmul Ali and others VS Md. Ulairaja - 1977 0 Supreme(Gau) 15Satish Chander Ahuja VS Sneha Ahuja - 2020 6 Supreme 613.
Fraudulent orders aren't shielded by finality or res judicata. They can be challenged at any time, even in collateral proceedings Ram Chandra Singh VS Savitri Devi - 2003 7 Supreme 267. This principle ensures courts protect their dignity, as emphasized: Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as order so obtained is non est 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 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1916.
Even if the original suit was yours, a defendant's fraudulent order in their counter-suit remains challengeable. Courts distinguish these, allowing remedies where fraud is proven—not mere allegations 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 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1916.
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) grants courts inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary for justice ends. This includes recalling fraud-tainted judgments: courts possess inherent power under Section 151 CPC to recall judgments or orders obtained by practicing fraud on the court HAMZA HAJI VS State of Kerala - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 738.
This power isn't statutory but intrinsic to judicial authority. Fraud-based orders are treated as nullities, challengeable anytime Tazmul Ali and others VS Md. Ulairaja - 1977 0 Supreme(Gau) 15. For instance, in compromise decrees, if fraud is played upon the court, petitions under Section 151 CPC are maintainable: There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure as to how a compromise decree can be challenged, if compromise decree is obtained by playing fraud upon the court. Therefore, there is only one way... by filing petition under section 151 of the CPC Ishakh Miyan @ Ishahak Dhobi, S/o Late Mauj Miyan VS Kishun Singh, S/o Late Gaya Mahato - 2017 Supreme(Pat) 1546.
Indian jurisprudence is rich with precedents affirming this remedy:
In one case, a compromise decree was recalled because petitioners' interests (as purchasers) were omitted, constituting fraud on the court Ishakh Miyan @ Ishahak Dhobi, S/o Late Mauj Miyan VS Kishun Singh, S/o Late Gaya Mahato - 2017 Supreme(Pat) 1546. Similarly, for Lok Adalat awards deemed civil decrees, civil courts retain jurisdiction if fraud is alleged Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy VS Bhargavi Constructions, rep. , by its Managing partner V. Ramachandra Rao - 2015 Supreme(AP) 271.
These cases underscore: once fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away 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 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1916.
Don't rely solely on appeals or reviews—opt for targeted remedies:
Act promptly, though no strict limitation applies. Courts may scrutinize unexplained delays if fraud knowledge existed HAMZA HAJI VS State of Kerala - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 738.
Yes, you can pray to set aside the defendant's fraudulent order in your case. Indian courts' inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC empowers them to treat such orders as nullities, recalling them upon proof of fraud HAMZA HAJI VS State of Kerala - 2006 0 Supreme(SC) 738Tazmul Ali and others VS Md. Ulairaja - 1977 0 Supreme(Gau) 15. From compromise decrees to Lok Adalat awards, precedents like Ishakh Miyan @ Ishahak Dhobi, S/o Late Mauj Miyan VS Kishun Singh, S/o Late Gaya Mahato - 2017 Supreme(Pat) 1546 and Nellore Sujanamma VS Attipalli Nagi Reddy - 2017 Supreme(AP) 608 reinforce this.
Key Takeaways:- Fraud vitiates everything—challenge anytime with evidence.- Use Section 151 CPC applications or suits.- Success hinges on proof, not allegations.
Empower yourself with knowledge, but always seek professional legal guidance tailored to your facts. Justice systems exist to rectify fraud, ensuring fair play.
This post references general principles from cited cases as of latest available data. Laws evolve; verify current status.
#FraudulentOrder, #CourtFraudIndia, #LegalRemedies
Learned Trial Court also noticed that by playing fraud one gains but other looses. ... It may again be mentioned that since appellant had played fraud, so any judgment and decree obtained by way of fraud can be set aside in any collateral proceedings and even by filing any fresh suit. ... In broader sense, plaintiff filed the suit for challenging the judgment & decree dated 11.04.1990 by submittin....
This sequence of events, coupled with the procedural omissions, would clearly establish that the decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. (vii) Advocate I. Veerasamy, as plaintiff, filed a suit in the year 2020, which was taken on file as O.S. ... the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 7, 8, and 9 was fraudulent, dishonest, null and void. ... Along with the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2020, Advocate I. Veerasamy also #HL_S....
This sequence of events, coupled with the procedural omissions, would clearly establish that the decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. (vii) Advocate I. Veerasamy, as plaintiff, filed a suit in the year 2020, which was taken on file as O.S. ... the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 7, 8, and 9 was fraudulent, dishonest, null and void. ... Along with the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2020, Advocate I. Veerasamy also #HL_S....
The Court has also the inherent power to set aside a sale brought about by fraud practised upon the Court {AIR 1954 Pat 450 Ishwar Mahton v Sitaram Kumar} or to set aside the order recording compromise obtained by fraud. ... obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. ... Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court....
If the allegations of fraud are made for the first time and there is no evidence on record to substantiate such allegations, the best course available before a party alleging that the judgment and decree in a case have been obtained by playing fraud upon the court is to file a separate suit seeking ... a relief of nullity of the decree obtained by fraud. ... Therefore, the impugned judgements are to be set aside o....
It is settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. ... It is specific case of plaintiffs that when there is allegation of fraud, in terms of Section 17(1) of Limitation Act, there cannot be any period of limitation and therefore, the suit was filed within the period of limitation and the application filed by the #....
As the judgment is obtained by suppression and fraud, therefore, the judgment under challenge passed by the Waqf Tribunal is also liable to be set aside. ... 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. ... In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the ....
On 17.11.2017, the plaintiffs in the present suit who are the legal heirs of one Suryanarayanan, who happened to be the 1st defendant in the said suit, sought for setting aside the said decree, claiming that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud. ... In my considered opinion, the bar enacted under Order 23 Rule 3 A is only with reference to legality of the terms of the compromise. It will not extend to protect a compromise which were obtained b....
obtained by playing fraud upon this Court. ... The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that “In judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as order so obtained is non est.” ... -A) is a void document executed by a coparcener Ram Sa....
decree was obtained by fraud. ... In my considered opinion, the bar enacted under Order 23 Rule 3 A is only with reference to legality of the terms of the compromise. It will not extend to protect a compromise which were obtained by playing fraud. ... Once fraud is pleaded and relevant pleadings are also made, the Court has to decide the issue and as such the suit cannot be thrown at initial stage as it is not barred ....
(vide Buddhi Kota Subbarao v/s State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Public Prosecutor & Others (referred supra). When the order was obtained by playing fraud on the Court, it vitiates the entire order and it is liable to be set-aside. Filing an application, suppressing certain orders passed by the Court having invited the orders by the second respondent/A-11 himself would amount to playing fraud on the Court, which is a matter of serious concern.
There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure as to how a compromise decree can be challenged, if compromise decree is obtained by playing fraud upon the court. Therefore, there is only one way to aggrieved party to challenge fraudulent compromise decree by filing petition under section 151 of the CPC before the concerned court and, therefore, in my view, petitioners have rightly filed the present petition before this court for recall of the order dated 20.1.2000 by which F.A. no. 208/1979 was disposed of in terms of compromise petition. 7. Order 23 rule 3 of the CPC says that no....
As the appellant has specifically pleaded, in the suit filed by him, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud, the Court below erred in rejecting his plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, on the ground that a civil suit does not lie against an award passed by the Lok Adalat. The point for consideration is answered holding that the remedy of a Civil Suit is not barred where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is invoked by a party to the compromise, or the award of Lok Adalat, alleging that the said compromise or award was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud." If a Civi....
An award passed by the Lok Adalat is, under Section 21(1) of the Act, deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. The point for consideration is answered holding that the remedy of a Civil Suit is not barred where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is invoked by a party to the compromise, or the award of Lok Adalat, alleging that the said compromise or award was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. As the appellant has specifically pleaded, in the suit filed by him, that the award of the Lok Adalat is vitiated by fraud, the Court below erred in rejecting his plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC....
The point for consideration is answered holding that the remedy of a Civil Suit is not barred where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is invoked by a party to the compromise, or the award of Lok Adalat, alleging that the said compromise or award was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. An award passed by the Lok Adalat is, under Section 21(1) of the Act, deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. If a Civil Suit can be filed to set aside a decree obtained by fraud, we see no reason why a Civil Suit cannot be filed to set aside an award of the Lok Adalat, if such an award has been....
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
