Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Held: Fraud unravels everything – R tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading the appellant as a party with the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the quantum of compensation payable for acquisition of the subject land but also a declaration as to his entitlement thereto all, behind the appellant’s back, is all fraud – R’s failure before the High Court to disclose the earlier series of litigation where he consistently asserted joint ownership with the appellant and S being a fact having a bearing on the merits of the case, sufficient to vitiate the impugned order – Suppression of material facts before the High Court by R is writ large; highlights the fraudulent intent behind R’s claim however, his fraudulent conduct not confined to that forum alone – Rapid pleadings, exclusion of a necessary party, and abandonment of the suit clearly reflects a collusive effort by R to manufacture support for his claim of sole ownership – All this confirms that his deceptive practices date back over two decades – Judicial orders procured by R by subverting the judicial process through fraud and concealment of material facts cannot be permitted to stand – Fact of the appellant being a co-owner of the property could not have been discovered by either the High Court or this Court unless the same were placed before such courts – Impugned order and the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana’s case procured by R are tainted by fraud and, thus, lack legal sanctity and validity – As regards the maintainability of petition, writ petition did not disclose violation of any of the fundamental rights including, inter alia, the right to have access to an effective legal remedy, since all the available options for relief are being sought to be explored by him and, hence, is not maintainable – Writ petition cannot lie against a judicial order – There being no challenge to any judicial order, this ground of challenge rejected – Furthermore, this Court is not exercising any “intra-court appeal” jurisdiction – Fraud is an exception to the doctrine of merger and considering that the impugned order of the High Court and the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana have been found to be vitiated by fraud, the plea of R as regards the non-maintainability of the present proceedings based on the merger doctrine of no significance – When the Court has been the victim of fraud, it’s hands cannot be tied down by procedural laws in a manner to defeat the interests and rights of other parties – An appeal against a decree or order, passed or made by an inferior court, before a superior court and a review of the same decree/order before the court which passed/made it cannot simultaneously be pursued by the same party – However, on facts there is an absence of a two-pronged assail in two different proceedings by the appellant to the same decree or order: whereas the civil appeal is directed against the impugned order, a petition has subsequently been filed by the appellant for review of the decision in Reddy Veerana’s case (which had the occasion to modify the impugned order) – Thus, neither s.114 nor Or.XLVII r.1, CPC would create a legal bar for entertaining the two proceedings-appeal and review that have been initiated by the appellant – Due to fraud having been played by R, the doctrine of merger does not apply and, thus, the impugned order is open to interference notwithstanding the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana’s case – Impugned order set aside, since fraud has vitiated the entire proceedings – As a logical corollary of the impugned order, the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana’s case, which too was obtained by playing fraud, will also be a nullity, and thus stand recalled in exercise of the inherent powers – Application for recall of the order whereby this Court directed the appellant to approach the court u/s.30 of the 1894 Act for appropriate relief allowed. [Paras 49, 51, 54, 60, 63, 64, 80-82, 84, 89, 122-124, 133, 134, 138-140, 144] Doctrines – Doctrine of Merger – Application of – Explanation: Held: When an appeal is limited to a specific part of the judgment and order of the first-instance court, the merger occurs only to that extent, leaving the rest intact and available for future consideration – Extent of merger is determined by the subject matter of the appeal – Merger can only operate on issues which were the subject-matter of the appellate court’s judgment and order and cannot have any application to issues which are not being taken on appeal by either party or which had not been touched upon by the appellate court – Application of the doctrine of merger, in every case, should be accompanied by an awareness of its limitations and should not be wielded to close avenues for addressing genuine concerns – Prioritizing justice and fairness should supersede an absolute insistence on finality – While the latter is commendable, the former is superior – These doctrines, even though are grounded in sound and justifiable public policy arguments, yet, do not limit the powers of the courts in cases where larger public interest is at stake – They have been adapted to accommodate exceptions and qualifications, leaving room for acknowledging special circumstances, particularly in matters of public significance – Doctrine of merger may not have any application in all cases of cognate civil appeals being carried from the same order (obviously at the instance of a party different from the appellant who approached this Court first in point of time). [Paras 110, 111, 113, 122, 123]