Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud

"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, in a ruling dated September 24, 2026, held that a decree obtained through the professional misconduct of an advocate—specifically by appearing for both opposing parties in a proceeding—constitutes fraud that vitiates the entire judicial outcome.

 A bench of Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal observed that when a counsel represents the plaintiffs and simultaneously enters a memo of appearance for the defendant without authorization, such an act amounts to a deliberate deception of the Court, rendering the resulting judgment null and void.

The case originated from a suit filed by the legal heirs of Ishar Dass, who sought to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed in 1984 by the Assistant Collector, Dabwali. The earlier decree had declared the defendants as occupancy tenants under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The plaintiffs contended that the predecessor-in-interest, Ishar Dass, was never served in those proceedings and that the decree was procured by playing fraud upon the Court.

Court Examines Validity Of Service And Legal Representation

The primary question before the Court was whether the predecessor of the plaintiffs had been duly served in the 1984 proceedings and whether the subsequent ex parte decree was the product of fraud. The Court was further required to determine whether the appearance of an advocate for both the plaintiffs and the defendant in the same suit constituted sufficient evidence of fraud to justify setting aside the decree.

Court Uncovers Deception In Legal Representation

The appellants argued that Ishar Dass was duly served by a bailiff and that a counsel had entered a memo of appearance on his behalf, thereby validating the proceedings. However, the High Court scrutinized the evidence of DW4, one of the original plaintiffs in the 1984 suit. This witness admitted that the advocate who appeared for Ishar Dass was, in fact, the counsel for the plaintiffs who had initiated the suit.

"The admission made by DW4-Jhandu before the learned Sub Judge... had completely shattered the case of the present appellants because in case, Ram Singh, Advocate was appearing on behalf of DW4-Jhandu etc. then how can Ram Singh, Advocate could have appeared on behalf of Ishar Dass in Case No. 11."

The Court highlighted that the advocate involved never filed a formal power of attorney for the defendant and withdrew from the proceedings after obtaining several adjournments, conveniently facilitating an ex parte order. This conduct was identified as a clear instance of professional misconduct used as a vehicle for fraud.

Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings

The High Court affirmed the finding of the First Appellate Court that the entire process was tainted. The Court noted that the bailiff's report could not be viewed in isolation when the underlying litigation was built upon a conflict of interest that subverted the adversarial system.

"Thus, it apparently seems from the above facts that fraud was played before learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dabwali as 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."

The Court held that since the foundation of the decree—the representation of the defendant—was fraudulent, the decree could not be shielded by the principle of finality. The Court emphasized that when the judicial process is compromised by the very officers of the court, the resulting decree loses its legal sanctity.

The Court rejected the argument that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the revenue court’s decree. It held that the jurisdiction to challenge a judgment obtained by fraud is inherent when the integrity of the judicial process has been undermined. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower appellate court’s decision to set aside the fraudulent decree.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026