AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.1634 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, seeking to set aside the decree and judgment dated 12.12.2024 passed in O.S.No.13 of 2024, declaring the same as null and void on the ground that the said decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court.
The petitioners are admittedly third parties to the proceedings in O.S.No.13 of 2024. Their specific case is that fraud was played upon the Court and that, by practising such fraud, the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024 came to be obtained.
Learned Principal District Judge, while considering the petition, directed the learned counsel for the petitioners to address the Court on the maintainability of the petition, particularly with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners, who are third parties to the suit, and the availability of other alternative remedy in law.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud upon the Court is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550, and A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221.
In Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the inherent power of a Court to recall an order obtained by practising fraud upon the Court and held that fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of judicial proceedings and that the Court possesses inherent power to set aside an order obtained by practising fraud upon it.
Likewise, in A.V. Papayya Sastry and others Vs. Government of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same view.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners, being admittedly third parties to O.S.No.13 of 2024, cannot seek to set aside or nullify the judgment and decree passed therein by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is his submission that, if the petitioners claim any independent right or interest which is affected by the decree, they have to avail the remedy available to them in accordance with law and cannot seek cancellation of the decree in proceedings to which they were not parties.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and having perused the material on record, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petition filed by the petitioners, who are admittedly third parties to the suit, could have been dismissed at the threshold merely on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to them, without examining the nature and scope of the specific allegation that the judgment and decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court.
It is no doubt true that the petitioners were not parties to O.S.No.13 of 2024. It is also true that the availability of an appropriate remedy to a person who was not a party to the original proceedings is a relevant consideration while examining the maintainability of such a petition. At the same time, the allegation raised by the petitioners is not merely that the judgment and decree are erroneous or that the Court has committed an error in deciding the suit. Their specific allegation is that fraud was practised upon the Court and that the decree itself was obtained by such fraud. The legal consequences of a decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud upon the Court stand on a different footing from those arising out of an ordinary error of law or fact.
The distinction between an allegation of fraud upon the Court and an allegation of fraud upon a party, the nature and particulars of the alleged fraud, the locus standi of the petitioners, the applicability and scope of the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, and the effect of the availability of an alternative remedy are all matters which require consideration with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case.
This Court is of the view that the learned Principal District Judge, while considering the petition, ought to have examined the aforesaid aspects in the light of the specific allegations raised by the petitioners and the rival submissions advanced by the parties. The mere fact that the petitioners are third parties to the suit, by itself, may not conclude the issue when a specific allegation of fraud upon the Court is raised and reliance is placed upon the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
At the same time, it is clear that the principles laid down in Indian Bank and A.V. Papayya Sastry do not dispense with the requirement of establishing the alleged fraud. A mere allegation of fraud cannot, by itself, result in a finding that the judgment and decree are null and void. The nature of the allegation, the material relied upon in support thereof, and whether the ingredients necessary to constitute fraud upon the Court are made out, are matters to be examined by the competent Court. The Supreme Court has also emphasized that a bald allegation or mere non-disclosure, without the requisite factual foundation and proof of an intention to deceive, cannot automatically result in a finding of fraud.
Therefore, having regard to the nature of the controversy and the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires fresh consideration by the learned Principal District Judge.
Accordingly, order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, for fresh consideration.
The learned Principal District Judge shall consider the petition afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties, and shall examine the maintainability of the petition, the locus standi of the petitioners, the nature of the allegations of fraud, the applicability and scope of Section 151 CPC, the effect of the availability of any alternative remedy, and the judgments relied upon by both sides, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations of fraud or on the maintainability of the petition. The contentions of both sides, including the effect and applicability of the judgments relied upon by them, are left open to be considered by the learned Principal District Judge.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.1634 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for disposal of I.A.No.1634 of 2025 in O.S.No.13 of 2024 in accordance with law and after hearing both the parties. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties shall co-operate for disposal of Interlocutory Application.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.