Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court

"It is well settled that a decree obtained by practising fraud upon a Court cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the person against whom it was obtained. Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings and a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is not entitled to the protection ordinarily available to a valid adjudication." Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that any judicial decree procured through the practice of fraud and misrepresentation is a nullity and cannot be permitted to stand.

A bench comprising Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed a regular second appeal, upholding the first appellate court's decision to set aside an ex-parte decree that had been obtained by the appellants through a fraudulent facade of legal representation.

The dispute originated from a suit filed by the respondents seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree dated March 5, 1984, passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dabwali. The appellants had previously obtained this decree by claiming that the original landowner, Ishar Dass, had been served and had appeared through counsel to concede their status as occupancy tenants under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The respondents, as legal heirs of Ishar Dass, contended that no such service was effected and that a massive fraud had been played upon the court by misusing the name of a lawyer to create an appearance of contest.

The primary question before the court was whether the ex-parte decree dated March 5, 1984, was obtained by practising fraud upon the court and whether the defendant in those proceedings, Ishar Dass, had been duly served. The court was also tasked with determining whether the findings of the First Appellate Court regarding the lack of service and the fraudulent conduct of the appellants required interference under Section 100 of the CPC.

The Court meticulously examined the evidence on record, specifically focusing on the circumstances surrounding the alleged service of summons and the purported appearance of an advocate. The appellants relied on the testimony of a bailiff to prove service; however, the court noted that the summons in question were not accompanied by a copy of the plaint, a critical requirement for enabling a defendant to effectively defend their interests.

Court Examines Integrity of Service of Summons

The bench underscored that the service of summons cannot be viewed in isolation from the duty to furnish the defendant with the necessary particulars of the proceedings. By failing to serve the plaint along with the summons, the proceedings before the Assistant Collector were fundamentally flawed. This lack of notice formed the foundation upon which the subsequent ex-parte decree was built.

Admission of Conflict of Interest by Appellants

The most damning evidence, however, was the admission of Jhandu, one of the original plaintiffs who had sought the occupancy rights. During cross-examination, Jhandu admitted that the same lawyer who had ostensibly appeared for the landowner, Ishar Dass, was simultaneously acting as counsel for the appellants themselves. The Court observed that this dual representation was a clear indicator of a fraudulent scheme designed to mislead the court.

"Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts"

The High Court held that the fact that a single advocate was representing both the party claiming occupancy rights and the landowner—without the latter's knowledge—demonstrated a clear intention to bypass the adversary process. The Court observed, "Ram Singh, Advocate was already appearing on behalf of Jhandu and etc. and he could not have appeared on behalf of Ishar Dass, owner of the suit land." This blatant conflict of interest effectively shattered the credibility of the earlier decree.

Finality of First Appellate Court Findings

The High Court reiterated that it was not an appellate court of facts in this context and found no perversity in the First Appellate Court's reasoning. Having established that the decree was a product of fraud, the Court ruled that the lower court correctly set aside the judgment. The High Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law to be determined, as the lower court’s factual findings were well-supported by the evidence, including the appellants' own admissions.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree dated April 12, 1996, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, which had declared the fraudulent 1984 decree null and void.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026