Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned four writ petitioners who were tenants of four shops in property bearing No. WZ-93, Titarpur, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, while the third respondent occupied the fifth shop as a tenant. The original owner, Siyaram Gupta, died around 1983, and his wife Smt. Urmila Devi and three daughters became owners. The petitioners claimed that towards the end of 1992 the landlady offered to sell the shops to the respective tenants, and three of the petitioners purchased the shops occupied by them. After the death of Smt. Urmila Devi, the third respondent, Sangat Singh, started declaring himself owner of all five shops and demanded rent from the petitioners, which they resisted. The petitioners alleged that to evict them otherwise than by due process, the third respondent resorted to a devious device. Two decrees were obtained against Petitioners 1 and 2, one from the Court of Assistant District Judge-1 at Gauhati dated May 18, 1994 in Arbitration Suit No.47 of 1994 making an award the rule of the court against the first petitioner, and the other from Sub-Judge-1, Gaya, making an award the rule of the court directing Sri Ala Noor (described as the second petitioner's father) to hand over possession of a shop. Execution of these decrees was transferred to Delhi, and the petitioners came to know of them only when the bailiff arrived with warrants for delivery of possession. The petitioners claimed they had no dealings with the alleged plaintiffs and that the decrees were fabricated by the third respondent. They filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to the CBI to investigate and prosecute the persons responsible. The Supreme Court entertained the petition on September 5, 1994 and granted stay of dispossession. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit claiming he was the owner of the shops by virtue of sale deeds executed in 1992, and that he had purchased the decrees from the two plaintiffs and obtained powers of attorney from them to execute them. The Court found this story incredulous and vague, noting that a genuine owner would have protested against third parties evicting his tenants and collecting 'pagri'. The Court held that the stratagem was resorted to with a view to obtain surreptitious eviction of the first and second petitioners in execution of spurious decrees, and that the manner in which the decrees were obtained and sought to be executed was a clear case of abuse of process of courts. The Court rejected the third respondent's argument that the writ petition was misconceived because the Code of Criminal Procedure provided the procedure and no fundamental right was involved, holding that when a blatant abuse of process of courts comes to notice, the Court has power and duty to rectify it, whether under Articles 32, 136, or 142 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court declared the two decrees inexecutable against Petitioners 1 and 2 through any court in Delhi, directed that they shall not be evicted from the shops in execution of those decrees, and imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the third respondent to be deposited within one month, with the amount to be paid equally to Petitioners 1 and 2, failing which the order would be executable as a decree of a civil court.
Headnote
A) Constitution Law - Abuse of Process of Court - Supreme Court's Power to Rectify Abuse - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 32, 136, 142 - Writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable when a blatant abuse of process of courts and judicial system is brought to notice, even if no specific fundamental right is invoked; the Court has power and duty to rectify it. The Court held that the power may be traced to Articles 32, 136 or 142. This was applied to declare fraudulent decrees inexecutable and impose costs. Held that the writ petition is maintainable and the Court should act to prevent abuse. (Paras 7-8) B) Civil Procedure - Fraudulent Decrees and Execution - Inexecutability of Decrees - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The Court examined decrees passed by Gauhati and Gaya courts making arbitration awards rules of court, and found that third respondent fabricated the circumstances, purchased decrees, and sought execution in Delhi to evict tenants. The Court directed that the two decrees shall not be executed against Petitioners 1 and 2 through any court in Delhi, and petitioners shall not be evicted in execution. Held that such conduct is a clear abuse of process and must be set right. (Paras 3, 6, 8) C) Costs - Imposition of Exemplary Costs - Abuse of Process - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 142 - The Court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on third respondent for abusing process, to be deposited within one month and paid to petitioners 1 and 2 equally; if not deposited, order executable as civil court decree. Held that persons indulging in such tactics must be dealt with appropriately. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable to challenge alleged abuse of process of court through fraudulent decrees; whether the decrees obtained from Gauhati and Gaya courts were fabricated and constituted abuse of process; and what relief should be granted to prevent eviction and address the abuse.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court declared the two decrees (between Bhupinder Singh and Jhumman Singh in Arbitration Suit No.47 of 1994 from Gauhati court, and between Ravi Raj Singh and Ala Noor from Gaya court) inexecutable against Petitioners 1 and 2 through any court in Delhi. Petitioners 1 and 2 shall not be evicted from the shops mentioned in the decrees in execution thereof. The third respondent, Sangat Singh, was directed to pay costs of Rs 1 lakh to be deposited in the Supreme Court within one month from the date of judgment; on deposit, the amount shall be paid to Writ Petitioners 1 and 2 (Rs 50,000 each). If the third respondent fails to deposit, the order shall be executable as a decree of the civil court by and at the instance of Petitioners 1 and 2 either jointly or separately.
Law Points
- Abuse of process of court
- writ jurisdiction under Article 32
- Supreme Court's power under Articles 32
- 136
- 142
- fraud vitiates proceedings
- execution of fraudulent decrees impermissible
- costs for vexatious conduct
