Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

d. In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana55, this Court referring to the decisions in D.A.V. College (supra) and Ramdas Athawale (supra) observed as follows:

11. But the above decisions do not wholly support the stand of the respondents. This Court in D.A.V. College [D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 269] has held that there are two aspects. The first is whether ultimately any fundamental right in fact is threatened or violated. So long as a prima facie case of such a threat or violation is made out, a petition under Article 32 must be entertained. Second, once it is entertained, irrespective of whether it is found ultimately that in fact no fundamental rights of the petitioners are invaded, the vires of the legislation or the competence of the legislature to enact the impugned legislation must be gone into and determined. [The Constitution Bench in D.A.V. College [D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 269], further held that while the first proposition is valid, the second is not. Thus, the entertainment of the writ petition does not mean that this Court has to examine the impugned legislation or legislative competence if the same is not found to be infringing fundamental rights.

71. Furthermore, the right to seek an effective legal remedy for an infringed right is part of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. One may make a profitable reference to the decisions in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan56 and Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India57 for the same.

72. Since the 1970s, interpretation of the Constitution, particularly Fundamental Rights, has undergone a significant transformation. Through dynamic and evolving interpretations, various aspects of equality, life and freedom have been recognised and expanded to reflect the changing needs of society.

55 (2023) 11 SCC 693 56 (2016) 8 SCC 509 57 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1334

p. 1420

73. We are, at this stage, reminded of what this Court held in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India58 while negating a challenge to the interpretation placed on Article 14 in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.59, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India60 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India Ltd.61 that all governmental actions, which are not supportable by law, would be per se violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Excerpts from paragraph 70 read as follows:

70. […] it is urged that the content of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution would not include the right which is guaranteed by other clauses of Article 19. According to the learned counsel, it must therefore logically follow that what facilitated the exercise of a fundamental right did not for that reason become a part of the fundamental right itself. He read out different passages from the judgments of Bhagwati. J. in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India Ltd. and endeavoured to show, to use his own language, that “in spite of some literal flourish in the language here and there, they did not and could not depart from the ambit of Article 14 which deals with the principle of equality embodied in the Article”. He was particularly critical of the dictum of Bhagwati, J. in International Airport Authority case5 that “arbitrariness was the antithesis of Article 14” and commented that this would mean that all governmental actions which are not supportable by law were per se violative of Article 14. I am afraid, it is rather late in the day to question the correctness of the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi case and the innovative construction placed by Bhagwati, J. on Article 14 in the three cases of Royappa, Maneka Gandhi and International Airport Authority which have evolved new dimensions in judicial process.

58 (1986) 1 SCC 133 59 (1974) 4 SCC 3 60 (1978) 1 SCC 248 61 (1979) 3 SCC 489

p. 1421

74. As we read the above passage acknowledging the declaration of law that arbitrariness in State action is an antithesis of Article 14, we are also reminded of decisions of high authority of this Court that a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14 [see Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel62] and that natural justice is an antithesis of arbitrariness [see Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanho University63].

75. Article 14’s guarantee against arbitrariness is fundamental to all State actions. Since equality and natural justice are antithesis of arbitrariness, nowadays it has become customary to style a petition as one filed under Article 32 and vaguely allege either arbitrariness or violation of the traditional principles of natural justice [the rules that none should be condemned unheard and no one should be a judge of his own cause] as well as a third principle developed in India, which also includes the right to be afforded a fair hearing and a reasoned order should the outcome of the proceedings be adverse to the person proceeded against. Question is, should the Supreme Court entertain writ petitions under Article 32 without clear and specific pleadings as to how the right of equality or any other Fundamental Right has been infringed and what is the impact thereof on the suitor without clear, specific, and definite pleadings? The answer must be an emphatic ‘NO’. If the principles deducible from the authorities referred to above are of any guidance and help, a loosely drafted writ petition under Article 32 ought not to be entertained in the absence of the requisite pleadings. Even where violation of a statutory right is sought to be camouflaged as violation of a Fundamental Right, or where a statutory right is found to have been predominantly violated with only an incidental infringement of a Fundamental Right, this Court may, in the judicious exercise of its discretion, refuse to entertain the writ petition while safeguarding the liberty of the suitor to pursue his writ remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

76. Having said that, we now proceed to decide the contentions raised by Reddy.

77. The first contention is that the writ petition does not disclose violation of any Fundamental Right. In this regard, reference may be made to the first paragraph of the writ petition which reads:

62 (1985) 3 SCC 398 63 (1998) 8 SCC 194

p. 1422

This Writ Petition under Article 32 seeks to enforce Petitioner’s fundamental Rights under Article 14, 19(1) (g) & Article 21 together with 300-A of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is necessitated on account of an extraordinary and brazen fraud upon this Hon’ble Court… This appears to be a general statement regarding the particular Fundamental Rights which, according to Vishnu, stand breached. It is of no help to him. Furthermore, a perusal of paragraph 6(h) of the writ petition reveals averments to the effect that the rights of Vishnu under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 have been severely impaired insofar as it relates to access to appropriate legal remedies, as the remedy available under Section 30 of the 1894 Act is only illusory in nature, considering that the question of title has already been declared in favour of Reddy.

78. A plain reading of the writ petition together with the prayer clauses, noted in paragraph 6 (supra), makes it evident that none of Vishnu’s Fundamental Rights were invaded to enable him maintain a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. To recapitulate, Vishnu prayed in his writ petition that (i) Reddy be declared as not the sole owner of the subject land, (ii) NOIDA’s decision (reflected in its letter dated 17th January, 2023) to sanction full compensation for acquisition of the land to Reddy be set aside, (iii) the trio be declared as co-owners of the land and jointly awarded compensation for acquisition thereof and (iv) an inquiry be ordered to unearth the fraud and to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the persons responsible. The case set up in the writ petition by Vishnu does not, in our opinion, constitute breach of any of his Fundamental Rights; although, it cannot be gainsaid that his property rights are definitely in jeopardy leading to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution for which a petition under Article 226 could have been entertained regard being had to the law laid down by a five-Judge Constitution Bench of this Court in Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab64. However, Vishnu sought to project that the writ petition had to be filed due to concerns that even if a sound case on merits were presented, other courts would feel hesitant to entertain the grievance given this Court’s decision in Reddy Veerana (supra). It

64 AIR 1963 SC 1909

p. 1423

was as if apart from the remedy of a writ petition before this Court, no other remedy was available to Vishnu.

79. That is, however, not the case before us. Vishnu has sought to avail the appellate remedy against the impugned order as well as a review of the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra) which, if undisturbed by us, would incidentally seal his fate. In any event, if Vishnu were to succeed in the civil appeal and the petition for review considered bearing in mind the decision on this civil appeal, the resulting relief would likely address his grievance arising from the fraud, of which he has claimed to be a victim.

80. In our view, there is no prima facie infringement of Vishnu’s 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. Accordingly, we uphold the first argument advanced by Reddy that the writ petition did not disclose violation of any of the Fundamental Rights and, hence, is not maintainable.

81. Having regard to the aforesaid finding, we are not required to deal with the second ground; however, for completeness of decision, we are ad idem with the contention that a writ petition cannot lie against a judicial order. In this context, reference may be made to the nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra65 where it was pertinently observed as follows:

18. On these facts, the question which arises for our decision is whether a judicial order passed by the High Court prohibiting the publication in newspapers of evidence given by a witness pending the hearing of the suit, is amenable to be corrected by a writ of certiorari issued by this Court under Article 32(2). This question has two broad facets; does the impugned order violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(a), (d) and (g); and if it does, is it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32(2)? Thus, in the present proceedings, we will limit our discussion and decision to

65 AIR 1967 SC 1

p. 1424

the points which have a material bearing on the broad problem posed by the petitions before us.

37. The next question which calls for our decision is : does the impugned order contravene the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)? In dealing with this question, it is essential to bear in mind the object with which the impugned order has been passed. As we have already indicated, the impugned order has been passed, because the learned Judge was satisfied that the interests of justice required that Mr Goda should not be exposed to the risk of excessive publicity of the evidence that he would give in court. This order was passed by the learned Judge after hearing arguments from both the parties to the suit. Thus, there is no doubt that the learned Judge was satisfied that in order to be able to do justice between the parties before him, it was essential to grant Mr Goda’s request for prohibiting the publication of his testimony in the newspapers from day to day. The question is : can it be said that an order which has been passed directly and solely for the purpose of assisting the discovery of truth and for doing justice between the parties, infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)?

38. The argument that the impugned order affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1), is based on a complete misconception about the true nature and character of judicial process and of judicial decisions. When a Judge deals with matters brought before him for his adjudication, he first decides questions of fact on which the parties are at issue, and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes the matter up before the appellate court. But it is singularly inappropriate to assume that a judicial decision pronounced by a Judge of competent

p. 1425

jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication can affect the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 19(1). What the judicial decision purports to do is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing more. If this basic and essential aspect of the judicial process is borne in mind, it would be plain that the judicial verdict pronounced by court in or in relation to a matter brought before it for its decision cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 19(1). (emphasis ours)

82. Interestingly, a perusal of the prayer clauses of the writ petition presented by Vishnu does not show that a challenge has been laid to any judicial order. He has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash and set aside the decision of NOIDA dated 17th January, 2023 and a writ of declaration to declare Reddy to not have an exclusive right to claim compensation. There being evidently no challenge to any judicial order, this ground of challenge is liable to be rejected.

B. Maintainability of Civil Appeal/Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

83. A variety of objections regarding the jurisdiction of this Court in determining the questions arising for decision have been raised.

Intra-Court Appeal

84. Firstly, we wish to clarify that we do not possess and are not exercising any “intra-court appeal” jurisdiction, as contended by learned senior counsel representing Reddy. The Constitution does not confer any such jurisdiction on us and we are conscious of the legal position. However, having so clarified, it is important to note that the principle of “fraud unravels everything” is not confined only to examining judgments rendered by the courts below but could include the unravelling of judgments of this Court as well, if at all the justice of the case before us so demands. In the former moiety of this judgment, we have discussed that Reddy has with impunity indulged in playing fraud on the courts and, therefore, his challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court must fail.

p. 1426

85. In Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab66, this Court held that:

17. It is a settled legal proposition that where a person gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law as fraud unravels everything. “Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law.” It is trite that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. Fraud and deception are synonymous. “Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine.” An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. [Vide Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383, para 34.]

86. Moreover, as noted hereinabove, the decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) delineated that every Court, either superior or inferior – first or final – has jurisdiction in cases where a judgment of the court has been obtained by fraud to treat it as nullity.

87. Acceptance of the contention of Reddy would lead to a situation akin to a juridical cul-de-sac, where no option is available to Vishnu to assert his legal rights. Adopting a hands-off approach weighed down by the fact of existence of a judicial order of this Court of competent jurisdiction and thereby keeping it untouched (despite

66 (2011) 12 SCC 588

p. 1427

proof of such judicial order having been procured by fraud), would be a travesty of justice. Much of what has been said by this Court on the aspect of fraud vitiating even the most solemn of proceedings, in that case, would seem to be dead letter. On the contrary, ends of justice demand that such order(s), as might have been procured based on established fraud, must not be retained on the record of Courts of Record.

88. Another challenge to the maintainability of the civil appeal is on the ground that the reference of the case, by this Court using its “intra-court appeal” jurisdiction to the present bench of three judges violate the established principle of stare decisis as it refers not only a question of law but also questions of fact. While the High Court and any subsequent Bench of this Court would no doubt continue to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the dicta in A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra), in reality, for the purposes of judicial propriety and abundant caution, this Court in a coordinate configuration deemed it inappropriate to examine whether the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana (supra), in which it is contended that the impugned order has merged into, ought to be examined in greater depth for ascertaining whether it was obtained by fraud. Therefore, the only plausible option open to the Bench of coordinate strength was to refer the matter to a larger bench to decide whether fraud has been played on this Court and this is precisely what has been done in the present case by the order dated 21st November, 2023. The said order was open- ended in the sense that who should constitute the larger bench was not specified. It was left open for the master of the roster to decide on constitution of the larger bench; and it could have included the available member(s) of the two-Judge Bench, which decided Reddy Veerana (supra). However, this Bench having been constituted by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Reddy having participated in the proceedings before us without raising any demur regarding coram, we see the contention as one raised in desperation. Even otherwise, to put it straight, we do not wish to spill much ink regarding this misconceived contention since by way of this judgment, we have kept our focus limited to the point of “fraud” and have exercised caution and circumspection in not making any determination regarding the merits pertaining to the dispute at hand. We, therefore, see no merit in the contention urged on behalf of Reddy that placement of the civil appeal and the writ petition before us is in violation of any law.

p. 1428

89. Lastly, ex abundanti cautela, as pointed out above, this Court in Reddy Veerana (supra) made no determination on the title of Reddy and only made the decision with respect to the compensation on the basis of the circle rate. Therefore, this larger bench is not strictly sitting in “appeal” on any point of law/fact but is concerned only with whether this Court’s judgment was procured through fraud.

Merger

90. Learned senior counsel for Reddy has also assiduously argued that the present civil appeal is not maintainable, as it effectively challenges an order of the Supreme Court, into which the impugned order has merged. It is contended that no appeal lies before the Supreme Court against its own order.

91. Since arguments in extenso were advanced on the aspect of non- applicability/applicability of the doctrine of merger, we need to notice what it means, how this Court has applied it or declined to apply it to the cases before it, and finally how relevant it is to the present exercise.

92. As per Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Edition), ‘merger’ means “the act or an instance of combining or uniting; Civil Procedure. the effect of a judgment for the plaintiff, which absorbs any claim that was the subject of the lawsuit into the judgment, so that the plaintiff’s rights are confined to enforcing the judgment”.

93. A brief overview of English law on the doctrine of merger by judgment reveals that when an action prevails, the cause of action, along with all attendant rights emanating from it, merge into the judgment and thereby stand extinguished.

94. To trace the origin of the doctrine of merger in English law, we must journey back to the nineteenth century. Almost two centuries ago, the Court of Exchequer Chamber, in the case of King v. Hoare67, articulated the following principles: If there be a breach of contract, or wrong done, or any other cause of action by one against another, and judgment be recovered in a court of record, the judgment is a bar to

67 (1844) 13 Meeson and Welsby 494

p. 1429

the original cause of action, because it is thereby reduced to a certainty, and the object of the suit attained, so far as it can be at that stage; and it would be useless and vexatious to subject the defendant to another suit for the purpose of obtaining the same result. Hence the legal maxim, ‘transit in rem judicatam’—the cause of action is changed into matter of record, which is of a higher nature, and the inferior remedy is merged in the higher.

95. Similarly, in Kendall v. Hamilton68, the House of Lords, endorsing the decision in Hoare (supra), stated thus: The doctrine of merger is quite intelligible. Where a security of one kind or nature has been superseded by another of a higher kind or nature, it is reasonable to insist that the party seeking redress should rest only upon the latter. So when what was once a mere right of action has become a judgment of a court of record, the judgment is a bar to the original cause of action.

96. In Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v. Zodiac Seats UK Ltd 69, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, summarised the doctrine of merger as follows:

17. […] [Merger] treats a cause of action as extinguished once judgment has been given upon it, and the claimant’s sole right as being a right upon the judgment. Although this produces the same effect as the second principle, it is in reality a substantive rule about the legal effect of an English judgment, which is regarded as ‘of a higher nature’ and therefore as superseding the underlying cause of action: see King v Hoare […].

97. Perhaps one of the earliest Indian decisions exploring the doctrine of merger is that of the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla70 wherein a Division Bench held thus:

68 (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504 69 [2013] UKSC 46 70 (1953) SCC OnLine Bom 28

p. 1430

It is a well-established principle of law that when an appeal is provided from a decision of a Tribunal and the appeal Court after hearing the appeal passes an order, the order of the original Court ceases to exist and is merged in the order of the appeal Court and although the appeal Court may merely confirm the order of the trial Court, the order that stands and is operative is not the order of the trial Court but the order of the appeal Court.

98. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Natvarlal Punjabhai v. Dadubhai Manubhai71, laid down that the English doctrine of merger, while it might have influenced certain judicial pronouncements in our country, it essentially has no relevance to a Hindu widow’s estate.

99. In State of Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd.72, another three-Judge Bench observed that the application of the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. It was observed thus:

5. […] But the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application and it cannot be said that wherever there are two orders, one by the inferior Tribunal and the other by a superior Tribunal, passed in an appeal on revision, there is a fusion of merger of two orders irrespective of the subject-matter of the appellate or revisional order and scope of the appeal or revision contemplated by the particular statute.

100. The question arising for decision before a Constitution Bench of five-Judges of this Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. and others73 was whether the order of the original authority merged in the order of the Appellate Authority even where the Appellate Authority merely dismissed the appeal without any modification of the order of the original authority. Answering the question posed before it, the Bench observed thus:

71 (1953) 2 SCC 489 72 [1967] 1 SCR 732 73 [1963] 2 SCR 563

p. 1431

4. [..] It is obvious that when an appeal is made, the Appellate Authority can do one of three things, namely, (i) it may reverse the order under appeal, (ii) it may modify that order, and (iii) it may merely dismiss the appeal and thus confirm the order without any modification. It is not disputed that in the first two cases where the order of the original authority is either reversed or modified it is the order of the Appellate Authority which is the operative order and if the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ to the Appellate Authority it cannot issue a writ to the original authority. The question therefore is whether there is any difference between these two cases and the third case where the Appellate Authority dismisses the appeal and thus confirms the order of the original authority. It seems to us that on principle it is difficult to draw a distinction between the first two kinds of orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the third kind of order passed by it. In all these three cases after the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal, the operative order is the order of the Appellate Authority whether it has reversed the original order or modified it or confirmed it. In law, the appellate order of confirmation is quite as efficacious as an operative order as an appellate order of reversal or modification. (emphasis ours)

101. At the turn of this century, the decision in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala74 was rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court. Since this decision stands out as a guiding light wherein this Court summarized the law on the doctrine of merger and appears to be the sheet anchor of the claim of Reddy, it would be apt to examine the decision closely.

102. The question that arose for decision in Kunhayammed (supra) was whether upon dismissal of a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India carried from an order of the High Court, a review petition would still be maintainable before such Court. The decision begins with the following words:

74 (2000) 6 SCC 359

p. 1432

1. A question of frequent recurrence and of some significance involving the legal implications and the impact of an order rejecting a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has arisen for decision in this appeal. The coordinate Bench had the occasion to examine the doctrine of merger in great depth. Briefly, what was held is this. If special leave were not granted (either by an unreasoned or a reasoned order) and the petition dismissed, the order under challenge would not merge in the order of dismissal. However, if upon grant of leave the Court dismissed an appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the order is unreasoned, the doctrine would apply resulting in merger of the order under challenge in the order dismissing the appeal. In paragraph 7 the Court noted that the doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine statutorily recognized and that it is a common law doctrine founded on principles of propriety in the hierarchy of the justice delivery system. Paragraph 12 of the decision has aptly captured the logic underlying the doctrine of merger. It was observed thus:

12. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or operative orders governing the same subject-matter at a given point of time. When a decree or order passed by an inferior court, tribunal or authority was subjected to a remedy available under the law before a superior forum then, though the decree or order under challenge continues to be effective and binding, nevertheless its finality is put in jeopardy. Once the superior court has disposed of the lis before it either way — whether the decree or order under appeal is set aside or modified or simply confirmed, it is the decree or order of the superior court, tribunal or authority which is the final, binding and operative decree or order wherein merges the decree or order passed by the court, tribunal or the authority below. However, the doctrine is not of universal or unlimited application. The nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or which could have been laid shall have to be kept in view.” (emphasis ours)

p. 1433

The Bench then proceeded to sum up its conclusions thus:

42. ‘To merge’ means to sink or disappear in something else; to become absorbed or extinguished; to be combined or be swallowed up. Merger in law is defined as the absorption of a thing of lesser importance by a greater, whereby the lesser ceases to exist, but the greater is not increased; an absorption or swallowing up so as to involve a loss of identity and individuality. (See Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. LVII, pp. 1067-68.)

44. To sum up, our conclusions are: (i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction

p. 1434

disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction

p. 1435

of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC. (emphasis ours)

103. A subsequent three-Judge Bench in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal75 succinctly summarized what was held in Kunhayammed (supra) in the following words:

20. The Court thereafter analysed number of cases where orders of different nature were passed and dealt with these judgments by classifying them in the following categories: (i) Dismissal at the stage of special leave petition—without reasons—no res judicata, no merger. (ii) Dismissal of the special leave petition by speaking or reasoned order—no merger, but rule of discipline and Article 141 attracted. (iii) Leave granted—dismissal without reasons—merger results.

104. It is discernible from the aforesaid decisions that although the doctrine of merger has its roots in common law principles, it has firmly been integrated within the contours of Indian jurisprudence.

105. Having discussed the law on the doctrine of merger, we must acknowledge that with rules come with exceptions. The doctrine of merger does not apply universally or without limit. There are certain decisions of this Court which, in the exceptional situations before it, declined to apply the doctrine of merger. It would be appropriate to notice the same now.

106. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vijai International Udyog76 emphasized that the doctrine of merger finds no application where the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” is applicable. It was observed thus:

75 (2019) 4 SCC 376 76 (1984) 4 SCC 543

p. 1436

4. On the facts of the case, we do not accept the view of the High Court that the doctrine of merger applied. Both the assessee and the Commissioner had a statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal against the decision of the Assistant Commissioner and in exercise of that right two separate appeals had been filed. On account of the mistake of the Tribunal in not clubbing the two appeals the statutory right of appeal of one party could not be negatived. It is a well-settled proposition of law that no party should suffer on account of the mistake of the Court or the Tribunal. That apart in a situation like this, the doctrine of merger has no application and the High Court was in error in throwing out the Commissioner’s appeal by applying the doctrine of merger.

107. Yet again, the two-Judge Bench in A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) laid down fraud as an exception to the doctrine of merger while observing thus:

38. The matter can be looked at from a different angle as well. Suppose, a case is decided by a competent court of law after hearing the parties and an order is passed in favour of the plaintiff applicant which is upheld by all the courts including the final court. Let us also think of a case where this Court does not dismiss special leave petition but after granting leave decides the appeal finally by recording reasons. Such order can truly be said to be a judgment to which Article 141 of the Constitution applies. Likewise, the doctrine of merger also gets attracted. All orders passed by the courts/authorities below, therefore, merge in the judgment of this Court and after such judgment, it is not open to any party to the judgment to approach any court or authority to review, recall or reconsider the order.

39. The above principle, however, is subject to exception of fraud. Once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non-existent and non est and cannot be allowed to stand. (emphasis ours)

p. 1437

108. In MRF Ltd. v. Manohar Parrikar77, a two-Judge Bench held that the doctrine of merger does not apply when the higher court has not adjudicated the issues on merits, and the controversy between the parties has not been looked into. In applying this doctrine to the specifics of the case, the Court had the occasion to observe:

39. The issue of merger has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present petitions, since, the issue that was decided by the High Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions and the issue that was raised and considered in the subsequent public interest litigation is entirely different. Secondly, in our view, the principles of res judicata are also not attracted since the issue raised and considered in the subsequent public interest litigation had not been raised and considered in the earlier round of litigation.

109. The decision rendered by another Bench of two Judges of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Pearl Drinks Ltd.78 is also worth consideration because it deals with a situation different from those considered by this Court in the aforementioned decisions. It was held thus:

21. The Tribunal obviously failed to notice this distinction and proceeded to apply the doctrine of merger rather mechanically. It failed to take into consideration a situation where an order may be partly in favour and partly against a party in which event the part that goes in favour of the party can be separately assailed by them in appeal filed before the appellate court or authority but dismissal on merits or otherwise of any such appeal against a part only of the order will not foreclose the right of the party who is aggrieved by the other part of this order. If the doctrine of merger were to be applied in a pedantic or wooden manner it would lead to anomalous results inasmuch as a party who has lost in part can by getting his appeal dismissed claim that the opposite party who may be aggrieved by another part of the very same order cannot assail its correctness no matter the appeal earlier disposed of by

77 (2010) 11 SCC 374 78 (2010) 11 SCC 153

p. 1438

the court or authority had not examined the correctness of that part of the order.

110. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that 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. The extent of merger is determined by the subject matter of the appeal. The 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.

111. What happens in situations where an appeal is limited to a specific portion of the judgment of the first-instance court or where the issues decided by the court therein remain unaddressed in the appellate court’s judgment: can it still be asserted that the entire original judgment of the first-instance court ceases to exist upon merging with the appellate court’s judgment?

112. In S. Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of T.N.79, a Bench of two Judges laid down that it is only the operative part of an original judgment that merges in the judgment of the appellate forum and not the whole of the judgment. The relevant paragraph of the decision is extracted hereunder:

10. Firstly, the doctrine of merger. Though loosely an expression merger of judgment, order or decision of a court or forum into the judgment, order or decision of a superior forum is often employed, as a general rule the judgment or order having been dealt with by a superior forum and having resulted in confirmation, reversal or modification, what merges is the operative part i.e. the mandate or decree issued by the court which may have been expressed in a positive or negative form. For example, take a case where the subordinate forum passes an order and the same, having been dealt with by a superior forum, is confirmed for reasons different from the one assigned by the subordinate forum, what would merge in the order

79 (2002) 8 SCC 361

p. 1439

of the superior forum is the operative part of the order and not the reasoning of the subordinate forum; otherwise there would be an apparent contradiction. However, in certain cases, the reasons for decision can also be said to have merged in the order of the superior court if the superior court has, while formulating its own judgment or order, either adopted or reiterated the reasoning, or recorded an express approval of the reasoning, incorporated in the judgment or order of the subordinate forum.

113. It is clear that what gets merged is the operative part of the original judgment and order, not its entirety, unless the appellate court adopts, reiterates the reasoning, or expressly approves the reasoning contained in the first-instance court’s judgment and order. Put differently, a ‘declaration of law’ by the appellate court regarding the issues before the first-instance court is necessary, which can only be inferred from a detailed, analytical order rather than a mere dismissal seeking closure of the case without clear discussion or analysis. Therefore, it becomes imperative to discern whether the appellate court’s judgment and order indeed ‘declares’ the law on the issues presented before the first-instance court.

114. At the cost of repetition, we may note that placing heavy reliance on Kunhayammed (supra) learned senior counsel for Reddy argued that the impugned order of the High Court having merged with the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra), the former ceases to exist, and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative, and is capable of enforcement in the eye of the law.

115. Reverting to Kunhayammed (supra), we bear in mind what the coordinate Bench expressed in paragraphs 12 and 44(iii) extracted supra. While wholeheartedly concurring with the law laid down in Kunhayammed (supra), we also notice that Kunhayammed (supra), on its own terms, has recognized that the doctrine of merger has limited application; hence, the same decision does carve out an exception requiring every matter coming before the courts, where the point of merger is raised, to be decided on case-to-case basis.

116. There can be no doubt that a review petition before the court which passed the decree/order would be barred by reason of application of the doctrine of merger if despite dismissal of a civil appeal by this Court, be it by a reasoned or an unreasoned order, the appellant

p. 1440

chooses to approach the court (whose decree/order was impugned) once again with a review petition. Notably, the issue that has engaged our attention in this appeal did not arise for decision in Kunhayammed (supra).

117. We preface our discussion on the next point by reiterating that a party to the proceedings affected by a judgment/order may appeal as of right within the prescribed period of limitation, if such a right is created by a statute. However, insofar as a stranger, i.e., a non-party to the proceedings is concerned, if an appeal from the judgment/order is allowed, he too can appeal provided a leave/permission is granted by the appellate court. Law is well-settled that much is not required to obtain leave/permission. If a stranger, dissatisfied with a judgment/ order, can make out even a prima facie case that he, being bound by such judgment/order, is aggrieved by it or prejudicially affected by it, there could arise little reason for declining leave/permission. We may usefully refer to the decisions in Jatan Kumar Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.80 and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh81 in this behalf. Precisely for this reason, the two-Judge Bench (cor. Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ.) granted permission to Vishnu to appeal against the impugned order.

118. Without reading and understanding the ratio laid down in Kunhayammed (supra) in light of the issue that was decided by it and blindly placing reliance on such ratio, as if it were a one-size- fits-all situations, could produce a result which may not be what the interest of justice of a given case would demand. A couple of situations can be conceived of where the principle of merger, as enunciated and in the manner understood as well as applied, could bring about undesirable and pernicious results.

119. One of the situations, akin to the present case, could be where the judgment and order of a high court upon a challenge being laid before this Court is upheld in the course of disposal of a civil appeal by way of its dismissal. As a result of merger of the operative directions contained in the order of the high court in the appellate order of this Court, it is such appellate order which would partake the character of the only operative order. Now, if the order of the high court

80 (1970) 3 SCC 573 81 (1974) 2 SCC 70

p. 1441

prejudicially affects a third party or even has the effect of binding such party but such party was deliberately not included in the array of respondents and, in fact, it is proved that he was unaware of the proceedings before the high court or this Court, the remedy of such affected party to appeal against the order of the high court with the permission of this Court as and when he derives knowledge of the same would not be available if the contention sought to be raised on behalf of Reddy, based on the merger doctrine, is accepted. The affected party would, thus, be disabled from applying for a review before the High Court per Kunhayammed (supra), its order having merged in this Court’s order. No doubt, remedy by way of review followed by a curative petition is made available before this Court by the SC Rules, 2013 but the same are not as wide as the remedy of appeal. Even in cases of such remedies, the party approaching this Court cannot urge, as a matter of right, that he be heard before an order is passed. The contention that Reddy has urged based on the merger doctrine, if accepted, might lead to highly unjust and inequitable consequences which, in cases, could be irreversible.

120. Let us consider another situation. This Court by enactments made by the Parliament exercises appellate jurisdiction over orders passed by several Tribunals. Suppose, one respondent in an original proceeding before a Tribunal considers itself aggrieved by an order passed by it and carries it in an appeal before this Court, which is dismissed by a Bench of two Judges in exercise of appellate jurisdiction vide a reasoned order without notice to the respondents on the first day it is listed. However, while such appeal was pending before this Court, another respondent in the original proceeding before the Tribunal is also desirous of carrying the same order in appeal but, for sufficient cause, is unable to appeal readily. By the time such respondent upon completion of all formalities presents its appeal and the same comes up for consideration before a Bench of this Court, whatever be the strength of the Bench, the respondent in the appeal being the successful applicant before the Tribunal and before this Court too brings to its notice that the appeal presented first in point of time has been listed and dismissed by a Bench of two Judges of this Court. Should the appellant (in the appeal, which was filed later) be told off at the gates on the sole ground that the order under appeal has ceased to be the operative order, having merged with the appellate order of this Court? If the situation unfolds to be such where the Bench of greater strength

p. 1442

is inclined to admit the appeal disagreeing with the view of the Bench of two Judges, can it be said that the said Bench would be disabled from exercising their appellate jurisdiction since, per the doctrine of merger, the order under appeal does not exist? The answers to the aforesaid questions, in our considered opinion, cannot but be in the negative. A right of hearing that accompanies every proceeding decided publicly, unless such hearing is barred, cannot be cast aside for no better reason than that of a merger having occurred.

121. There is one other exception to the doctrine of merger. Nowadays, it is not a rarity to find that petitions involving similar, though not identical, issues are clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment and order. If such a judgment and order is unsuccessfully challenged before a superior court by one of the petitioners to the proceedings, and such a challenge fails, the doctrine of merger may not apply when another set of petitioners challenges the same (common) judgement and order; if the second set of petitioners are able to demonstrate that the case run by them is not identical (though bearing resemblance) with the proceedings already decided, it would still be open for the superior court to entertain the challenge and rule in a manner different from the earlier proceedings.

122. Thus, the 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.

123. On a conspectus of the authorities, we are inclined to the view that the 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), if it is convincingly demonstrated that (i) his right of appeal should not be foreclosed because of the very rare or special circumstance(s) that is/are projected before the court;

p. 1443

or (ii) his appeal raises an issue of seminal public importance, which was not available to be raised by the appellant who approached this Court in its appellate jurisdiction in the earlier round of litigation, and also that such issue in the greater public interest requires a resolution by this Court; or (iii) since an act of court ought to prejudice none, refusal to interfere by this Court would invariably result in offending the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit; or (iv) the earlier appellate decision is vitiated because of fraud having been practiced on this Court by a party in whose favour the ruling had been made, as in this case; or (v) that public interest would be put to extreme jeopardy by reason of irretrievable consequences ensuing, if interference which is otherwise found to be warranted in law were declined solely based on the doctrine of merger.

124. Having noted that 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 (supra) have been found by us to be vitiated by fraud, the argument by learned senior counsel for Reddy as regards the non-maintainability of the present proceedings based on the merger doctrine is of no significance.

Procedure, If An Impediment To Exercise Jurisdiction

125. Procedural law is a sentinel of non-arbitrariness; it not only provides a safeguard against the individual vagaries of a judge but also establishes a structured framework for litigants to approach the legal system for redressal of their issues. However, procedural law cannot foresee all situations that may arise. Procedure must facilitate justice, not detract from it. In special cases, the letter of procedural law must yield to the ends of justice. Courts are, of course, duty-bound to apply procedural law in its entirety, save where such application would result in manifest absurdity.

126. The contention advanced by learned senior counsel for Reddy is that the procedure undertaken by the Registry and the Division Bench of this Court violates the SC Rules, 2013. We are in complete disagreement with such a proposition since the provisions of the SC Rules, 2013, highlighted by learned senior counsel for Reddy, are applicable in the course of normal action. Once fraud, on the face of the record, is proved, the procedural law laid down by the SC Rules, 2013 must support the actualisation of justice, not the continued

p. 1444

perpetuation of wrongs. We quite agree with the contention of learned senior counsel for Vishnu that Order LV, Rule 6 of the SC Rules, 2013 specifically recognises the inherent powers of this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction to secure justice. 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.

127. In the case of State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari82, this Court with reference to Rule 3 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. 5, Chap. 1-A held:

8. …This omission or default is only a breach which can be characterised as an irregularity to be corrected by condonation on application by the party fulfilling the condition within a time allowed by the court. We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non- compliance, tho’ procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities. Viewed in this perspective, even what is regarded as mandatory traditionally may, perhaps, have to be moderated into wholesome directions to be complied with in time or in extended time… .

128. In M.V. “Vali Pero” v. Fernandeo Lopez83, this Court in a case regarding Rule 4 of Chapter XXII of the Calcutta High Court Rules, 1914, as applicable to the Original Side, held that:

18. Rules of procedure are not by themselves an end but the means to achieve the ends of justice. Rules of procedure are tools forged to achieve justice and are not hurdles to obstruct the pathway to justice. Construction of

82 (1976) 1 SCC 719 83 (1989) 4 SCC 671

p. 1445

a rule of procedure which promotes justice and prevents its miscarriage by enabling the court to do justice in myriad situations, all of which cannot be envisaged, acting within the limits of the permissible construction, must be preferred to that which is rigid and negatives the cause of justice. The reason is obvious. Procedure is meant to subserve and not rule the cause of justice. Where the outcome and fairness of the procedure adopted is not doubted and the essentials of the prescribed procedure have been followed, there is no reason to discard the result simply because certain details which have not prejudicially affected the result have been inadvertently omitted in a particular case. In our view, this appears to be the pragmatic approach which needs to be adopted while construing a purely procedural provision. Otherwise, rules of procedure will become the mistress instead of remaining the handmaid of justice, contrary to the role attributed to it in our legal system.

129. We have no hesitation to hold that a similar interpretation can be applied to the SC Rules, 2013.

130. The contention of Reddy under consideration can also be dealt with by applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. No act of Court should harm a party being the foremost principle in the mind of any Court, it would be a travesty of justice if such court, feeling bound by the shackles of technicalities, were to decline interference to set things right despite arriving at a definitive conclusion of being tricked by fraud; and, it is a fallacy to urge such a contention before the Supreme Court, which has vast and pervasive powers to remedy any wrong that might have occasioned to a litigant owing to sharp and fraudulent practices of another litigant, more particularly in a case of proven fraud.

131. This contention of Reddy, therefore, must fail owing to our satisfaction of the impugned order and the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra) having been vitiated by fraud.

C. Vishnu pursuing the civil appeal as well as the review petition and application for modification/recall, simultaneously

132. That Vishnu has spared no effort to explore every option has been noticed by us above.

p. 1446

133. 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. The logic behind it is that there cannot be a parallel challenge to the same decree or order by the same party before two different fora – that is, in the courts of appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction. On the very terms of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC, such a course of action is not permissible.

134. However, there is an absence of a two-pronged assail in two different proceedings by Vishnu to the same decree or order: whereas the civil appeal is directed against the impugned order, a petition has subsequently been filed by Vishnu for review of the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra) [which had the occasion to modify the impugned order]. Therefore, neither Section 114 nor Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC would create a legal bar for entertaining the two proceedings [appeal and review] that have been initiated by Vishnu.

135. Nevertheless, it does seem to us to be a well thought out endeavour on the part of Vishnu to file the petition for review even after he had carried the impugned order in an independent appeal before this Court. Uncertainty was looming large and Vishnu, not content to rest on his oars by simply appealing to the conscience of this Court, also sought a review to remedy the wrong caused to him by Reddy. If indeed the appeal against the impugned order were to fail on the ground that the same had merged in the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra), as argued by Reddy, or even if the same appeal were to succeed and the impugned order set aside, Vishnu would have very little to salvage since the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra) would still hold the field. Filing of the review by Vishnu, thus, appears to have been intended to ensure that he is either not non-suited or that even after achieving success in appeal, he is not left in the lurch. However, we are of the considered opinion that even if Vishnu had not applied for a review - as a logical corollary of the aforesaid discussions - the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra) too having been obtained by Reddy by playing fraud, has to be erased from the records being a nullity.

136. Turning to the order under appeal declining registration of the petition for review, which has been directed to be tagged with these proceedings and also requires simultaneous disposal, we find that the petition was marked as defective. The grounds based whereon the Registrar declined registration have been perused.

p. 1447

137. The occasion has now arisen for considering the grounds urged in support of the appeal against the Registrar’s order. Apart from an objection that appropriate quantum of court fees has not been deposited, which Vishnu has disputed, the Registrar noted certain technical defects concerning array of parties and the like. The same are certainly curable defects. We, therefore, find it necessary to allow the appeal by requiring the Registry to notify the additional quantum of court fees payable by Vishnu, which has not been notified to him, as well as grant liberty to Vishnu to cure the other technical defects within a fortnight from this date. It is only upon curing of such defects that the petition for review shall be treated to be in order.

138. As already discussed above, due to fraud having been played by Reddy, 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 (supra). For reasons already discussed, the civil appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order set aside.

139. As a logical corollary of the impugned order being set aside, it would follow that the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana (supra), upholding the same, which too was obtained by playing fraud, will also be a nullity, and thus stand recalled in exercise of our inherent powers.

140. Furthermore, based on the aforesaid discussion, we are also inclined to allow the application (MA 1737/2023 in MA 255/2023 in C.A. No. 3636/2022) for recall of the order dated 30th January, 2023 whereby this Court directed Vishnu to approach the court under Section 30 of the 1894 Act for appropriate relief.

D. Forum Shopping

141. The contention that Vishnu has engaged in forum shopping is premised on the fact that he instituted Civil Suit No. 471/2020 on 7th August, 2020 before the trial court claiming that the compromise decree dated 17th November, 2006 was null and void and, therefore, it is contended that the present proceedings are instituted to bypass the jurisdiction of the trial court.

142. This contention has been urged to be rejected. When the High Court has already ruled in a proceeding that directly affects Vishnu’s right and when such decision, on appeal, is replaced by the decision of the higher court in Reddy Veerana (supra), Vishnu invariably

p. 1448

was left with no other option but to approach this Court by way of these proceedings. After the decision in Reddy Veerana (supra), it is obvious that no court, far less the trial court, would venture to make any order having the effect of upsetting what this Court had directed rendering Vishnu’s endeavour to approach any other court useless before first attempting to have the order operating against him in Reddy Veerana (supra) vacated/recalled.

143. Pertinently, we wish to point out that considering the long-standing set of disputes between the trio, it would have been appropriate if the High Court were urged to implead those third parties whose rights could specifically be affected. However, the High Court proceeded unaware of the fact that there was one other party (read Vishnu) who was claiming joint ownership and had even instituted a suit to have the decree obtained by Reddy declared void. Now, in view of the order that we propose to pass, we hope and trust that all the necessary parties would be brought on record and extended the opportunity to place their respective versions to facilitate an appropriate decision to be rendered to terminate the present lis by a just and proper redetermination of the compensation payable to the rightful claimant(s).

E. Conclusion

144. In the wake of the unbecoming conduct of the trio, we do not feel bound by the nature of relief claimed by Vishnu. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to order/direct as under: i. the impugned order of the High Court dated 28th October, 2021 passed in WP (Civil) 2272/2019 [Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.] stands set aside, since fraud has vitiated the entire proceedings; ii. as a corollary to the above, the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2022 in Reddy Veerana (supra) (which too was obtained by playing fraud) is declared to be a nullity and stands recalled in exercise of our inherent powers; iii. the order dated 30th January, 2023 passed by this Court in MA 255/2023 in C.A. No. 3636/2022 is recalled, also in exercise of our inherent powers; iv. WP (Civil) 2272/2019 [Reddy Veeranna v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.] is remanded in its entirety to the High Court;

p. 1449

v. as a consequence of (iv) supra, WP (Civil) 2272/2019 will stand revived and restored on the file of the High Court with direction to implead Vishnu Vardhan and T. Sudhakar as additional respondents; vi. WP (Civil) 2272/2019 will be decided afresh by the High Court in accordance with law, upon hearing all interested parties; vii. should any disputed question of fact arise for decision disabling it to decide the same based on affidavit evidence, the High Court may in its discretion permit the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence regarding the claim for compensation as well as re-determination and apportionment thereof amongst the rightful claimants, as if it were exercising powers under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. viii. till such time a decision is given by the High Court, the interim order dated 21st January 2025, whereby we allowed Reddy to furnish securities through his partnership firm Manyata-Pristine instead of cash deposit, shall continue meaning thereby that the securities furnished by him in the form of title deeds of immovable properties shall remain deposited with this Court and shall be subject to and abide by further orders of the High Court; ix. however, the interim order dated 3rd October, 2024 restraining Reddy from entering into any agreement to sell and/or to create third party rights in respect of the immovable assets owned by him (except those for which security has been furnished), his family and the companies created by him or his family members shall remain in abeyance subject to his cooperating with the High Court for early disposal of the writ petition; x. in the event of non-cooperation from the side of Reddy, the High Court may pass such restraining order as it may deem fit and proper. xi. having regard to the magnitude of fraud which we have detected in course of consideration of these proceedings, we find it just and proper to request the Chief Justice of the High Court to preside over the Division Bench for finally deciding the writ petition as early as possible, and subject to the convenience of the Bench, preferably by the year end;

p. 1450

xii. all questions on merits, other than those decided vide this judgment, including re-determination of fair and just compensation for the acquired land and apportionment thereof, are kept open for being urged before the High Court; xiii. having regard to the track record of the trio, the possibility of a compromise cannot be totally ruled out and if they file terms of settlement, we hope and trust that the High Court will carefully examine such terms to ensure that public interest is not hindered in its acceptance; and xiv. pending suits/proceedings, if any before any judicial fora / administrative authority, shall be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

145. The civil appeal (CA 7777 of 2023), the appeal against the order of the Registrar (MA Diary No. 6013/2024 in Review Petition Diary No. 33040/ 2023), and the application for recall of the order dated 30th January, 2023 (MA 1737/2023 in MA 255/2023 in C.A. No. 3636/2022) are allowed and shall stand disposed of on the above terms together with all other connected applications. The writ petition [WP (C) 673 of 2023] is, however, dismissed.

146. As indicated in paragraph 137, Vishnu shall be at liberty to cure the defects upon due communication of the additional court fees to be put in by him for making the petition for review in order. Thereafter, the petition for review (Dy. No. 33040/2023) shall be registered, appropriately numbered, and shown to have been disposed of by this order. Should Vishnu fail to cure the defects, the petition shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

147. SMC (C) No. 3/2024 will be heard separately.

148. In view of the remand ordered by us, we observe that the parties shall bear their own costs.

Result of the case: Matters disposed of.