Case title:
VISHNU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN v.THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Date of Order:
July 23, 2025.
Bench:
Justice SURYA KANT
Justice DIPANKAR DATTA
Justice UJJAL BHUYAN
Parties:
Vishnu vardhan @ vishnu Pradhan -Appellant
The State of uttar pradesh & ors. - Respondent
SUBJECT
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply to judgments obtained by fraud, emphasizing that fraud vitiates all judicial acts. It allowed both a civil appeal and a review petition by Vishnu, finding no legal bar under Section 114 or Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
The Court exercised its inherent powers to recall fraudulent orders, including its own previous decisions. It remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication, directing impleadment of all interested parties.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Order XLVII Rule 1of CPC-
Lays down the conditions under which a review of a court’s judgment may be sought, such as mistake, new evidence, or any other sufficient reason. It ensures correction of errors without resorting to appeal.
Article 32 – Constitution of India
Article 32 gives individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights. It is a cornerstone of the Constitution, allowing writ petitions against State actions violating such rights.
OVERVIEW
The proceedings involve appellant-writ petitioner-applicant Vishnu Vardhan and respondent Reddy Veeranna, who allege fraud in court proceedings. The complex web of activities and relief claims in the civil appeal and writ petition by Vishnu must be examined to determine if fraud is established and how it affects judicial proceedings. Vishnu has also presented a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking diverse relief. (para 6)
The case involves rival claims over ownership of a land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority in 2005. The land was jointly purchased by Reddy, Sudhakar, and Vishnu in 1997. The trio has been seeking multiple relief in legal proceedings, with Vishnu alleging fraudulent conduct by Reddy. Vishnu has filed a civil appeal seeking relief from the court, including a declaration that Reddy is not the sole owner, an order to set aside NOIDA's decision to award full compensation, joint compensation, and an inquiry into fraud. (para 7,8 and 10)
Through notifications in September and November 2005, NOIDA formally acquired the land. Importantly, Reddy filed a civil suit against Vishnu in May 2006, and on November 17, 2006, Venkataramana, Vishnu's alleged PoA holder, acknowledged Reddy's claims. Vishnu argued that since Venkataramana lacked authority, this was a fraudulent act. In September 2010, Reddy was able to have Vishnu's name removed from the land records based on this fraudulent decree. Making use of this, Reddy claimed sole ownership and requested increased compensation in a January 2019 writ petition submitted to the Allahabad High Court. The High Court granted Reddy's petition on October 28, 2021, establishing him as the sole proprietor and greatly increasing the damages.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the impugned order having merged with this Court’s order dated 5th May 2022 in Reddy Veerana (supra), as claimed by Reddy, renders the present appeal – which, so to say, lays a collateral challenge to an order of this Court itself – not maintainable?
- Whether the present writ petition is not maintainable, as it seeks to challenge a judicial order which, by its very nature, can never be said to violate Fundamental Rights?
- Whether Vishnu can pursue a civil appeal against the impugned order as well as a petition for review of the decision of this Court in which the impugned order has merged, as claimed, simultaneously?
- Whether Vishnu has engaged in forum shopping?
- Whether Reddy obtained the impugned order, as well as this Court’s order dated 5th May 2022 in Reddy Veerana (supra), by practising fraud and deception upon the courts and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside/recalled?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY VISHNU
The senior counsel for Vishnu argues that the impugned order and other orders obtained by Reddy through misrepresentation and suppression of facts should be treated as void ab initio, citing inconsistent and contradictory positions regarding his property ownership. (para 21)
Venkataramana's statement admitting Reddy's property ownership was unauthorized, as the power granted was canceled before Civil Suit No. 370/2006. Reddy used a fraudulent decree to mutate his name in revenue records, filed multiple pleadings, and consistently suppressed the existence of the decree. (para 22)
Vishnu argues that relegating the acquisition matter to the Collector or Reference Court after two decades is unjust and that the land should be treated as commercial, and the order should be set aside. (para 23)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY REDDY
Reddy challenges the maintainability of a civil appeal and writ petition, citing Vishnu's attempt to apportion land before the nullification of the Power of Attorney, full settlement agreement, and trial court decree. Despite CS No. 471/2020, Vishnu has not sought monetary compensation, bypassing the Trial Court to save court fees. (para 24)
Vishnu has engaged in forum shopping, pursuing various proceedings and civil suits. This Court's jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating complicated questions under Article 131 of the Constitution and deciding intra-court appeals. (para 24)
The court's November 2023 order against a three-Judge Bench contradicts the principle of stare decisis, and Vishnu's writ petition is not maintainable due to Supreme Court's order. The High Court's order merges with this Court's final order, making Vishnu's civil appeal unmanageable and applying the doctrine of merger. (para 25)
The Court cannot review a judgment through a miscellaneous application, as it violates Order XLVII, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Vishnu, a chronic litigant, has been found to suppress material documents and commit fraud. (para 25)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY NOIDA
NOIDA argues that the doctrine of merger isn't applicable when the court's order is vitiated by fraud, and the court has plenary powers to prevent abuse of process. Landowners should be relegated to the reference court for compensation determination, and the High Court and Court committed a legal error. (para 26)
NOIDA has requested the recall of the High Court's orders and the Court's orders under Article 142 of the Constitution, revisit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- per sq. metre, or direct landowners to the appropriate court. (para 27)
Vishnu defended the maintainability of his petitions, stating that he is not appealing the judgment and is using the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. He also argued that the SC Rules preserve the Court's powers to prevent abuse of the court's process, and that fraud is an exception to the doctrine of merger. He also argued that the writ petition is maintainable not only due to infringement of Article 300-A of the Constitution but also due to Vishnu's rights. (para 78)
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
After hearing the counsel's arguments, the Supreme Court noted, "In our opinion, there is no prima facie violation of Vishnu's Fundamental Rights, including, among other things, the right to have access to an effective legal remedy, since all of the available options for relief are being sought and explored by him."
As a result, the court extended support to Reddy's initial claim that the writ petition is unmaintainable because it failed to reveal any violations of fundamental rights. The Court pointed out that despite having its origins in common law ideas, the doctrine of merger has become deeply ingrained in Indian jurisprudence.
Furthermore, this court had in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, the Court held that any order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is void and cannot be upheld, as fraud vitiates the very foundation of legal proceedings. It reaffirmed the principle that fraud and justice never dwell together, and no equitable doctrine can protect a fraudulent act. However, as clarified in State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, even a void or fraudulent order must be formally set aside by a competent court. A party cannot simply ignore such an order without due process. Courts possess inherent jurisdiction to treat judgments obtained by fraud as nullities. This ensures that judicial authority is not misused and the sanctity of justice is preserved. (para 87 and 88)
There is no bar under Section 114 or Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to Vishnu pursuing both a civil appeal and a review, as they challenge different aspects of the same decree, the appeal targeting the impugned order and the review addressing its modification in Reddy Veerana. This dual strategy appears to be a considered effort to avoid being non-suited due to the doctrine of merger or left without remedy if only one proceeding succeeds. (para 137)
Even if the appeal were allowed, the decision in Reddy Veerana, allegedly obtained by fraud, would still stand unless reviewed. Thus, the review petition was necessary to fully remedy the alleged injustice. The Court held that if the impugned order is set aside, Reddy Veerana founded on fraud must also fall, and accordingly exercised its inherent powers to allow the recall application. (para 138)
The allegation of forum shopping by Vishnu is without merit. His earlier suit challenging the 2006 compromise decree does not bar the present proceedings, as the High Court’s decision—later affirmed in Reddy Veerana left him with no viable remedy except to approach this Court. Once that judgment stood, no lower court could offer effective relief. The Court also noted that Vishnu, claiming joint ownership, was not impleaded earlier, and emphasized that all affected parties must now be heard to ensure a fair and final resolution of the dispute. (para 142 and 143)
CONCLUSION
The Court set aside the High Court’s order and declared the Reddy Veerana judgment a nullity due to fraud. It recalled its earlier orders and remanded the writ petition to the High Court for fresh adjudication.
