Holding

The Court held that the fraudulent decrees were an abuse of process and, under Articles 32, 136 and 142 of the Constitution, could be declared inexecutable, the respondents restrained from illegal eviction, and costs awarded.

Summary

The petitioners, tenants of four shops, alleged that the third respondent fraudulently obtained two court decrees from Gauhati and Gaya to evict them from their premises, purchasing the decrees and powers of attorney for a sum of rupees twenty thousand each. They sought a writ under Article 32 directing the CBI to investigate the fraud and to prevent their unlawful eviction. The respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable under Article 32 and that he had lawfully purchased the decrees. The Supreme Court held that the manner of obtaining and executing the decrees constituted a blatant abuse of process, and that the Court has power under Articles 32, 136 and 142 to intervene even in such matters. Consequently, the decrees were declared inexecutable, the respondents were restrained from evicting the petitioners except by lawful procedure, and the third respondent was ordered to pay costs of one lakh rupees. The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioners were free to pursue civil or criminal actions against the respondent.

Issues considered

The petition under Article 32 is maintainable despite not directly enforcing a fundamental right.
Whether the decrees obtained by the third respondent amount to an abuse of process of the courts.
Whether the Supreme Court can, under Articles 32, 136 and 142, declare such decrees inexecutable and issue restraining orders.
The appropriateness of imposing costs on the third respondent.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 142, s. Article 32
Rent Control Act

Subjects

abuse of processwrit petitionArticle 32fraudulent decreetenant evictionCBI investigationcostsdecree declared inexecutable

Judgment

JHUMMAN SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
CENTRAL BOARD OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

MARCH 30, 1995

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.) B

Cqnstitution of India, 1950: Articles. 32, 136, 142

Writ-Allegation of abuse of process of Court--Obtaining spurious
decrees by tenant for eviction of co-tenants-Held a blatant abuse of process C
of Courts-Court has power to rectify such an abuse-Writ held main-
tainable-Imposition of heavy cosU-Supreme Court's directions.

The petitioners filed a Writ Petition in this Court for a direction to
the Central Board of Investigation to investigate and prosecute the
Respondent-3 and other persons responsible for obtaining fraudulent D
decrees for unlawful eviction of the petitioners. Their case was that they
as tenants were in possession of four shops while the third respondent was
in possession of the fifth shop of a property owned by one SG. After the
death of SG three of the petitioners purchased three shops from the
landlady, wife of SG and sale deeds were also executed in their favour. E
However, after the death of the landlady the third respondent started
declaring himself as the owner of all the five shops and demanded rent
from the purchaser but they resisted. Further with a view to evicting the
petitioners from the shops otherwise than by due process of law Respon-
dent 3 resorted to a devious device and obtained two decrees !n a
fraudulent manner against petitioners 1 and 2 - one from the Court of F
District Judge I Guwahati and the other from Sub-Judge I Gaya. In terms
of these decrees petitioners 1 and 2 were to handover peaceful possession
of their shops to the respective decree holders. The petitioners further
, alleged that neither had they anything to do with the persons shown as
plaintiffs in the said decrees nor had they any dealing wit!i them and that G
they came to know of the said decrees only when the Bailiff came with the
warrants of delivery to take possession of the premises.

'.lbe third respondent on the other hand denied the petitioners' claim
of title and claimed ownership of the shops on the basis of sale deeds
executed by the landlady in 1992. As regards the decree, he stated that the H
95
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 3 S.C.R.

A plaintiffs in these two decrees contacted him stating that they wanted to
execute the decrees and after execution they will give the shops to some
other persons and get 'pagri' bnt he pnrchased the said decrees from those
plaintiffs for rupees twenty thousands each and obtained powers of Attor-
ney from them to enable him to execnte the said decrees. The third
B respondent also raised objection as to the maintainability of the writ
petitions on the ground that on the basis of nature of complaint made by
the petitioners a writ nnder Article 32 was wholly inappropriate because
the petitioners were not seeking to enforce any of their fnndamental rights.

Allowing the petition, this Court
c HELD: 1. The manner in which the decrees were obtained and sought
to be put in execntion by the third respondent through the Court at Delhi
is a clear case of abuse of process of courts. The whole story, every bit of
it, appears to be a fabricated one meriting no consideration whatsoever.
It is abundantly clear that the said stratagem was resorted to by the third
D respondent with a view to obtain the snrreptitions eviction of the 1st and
2nd petitioners in execntion of the said spnrious decrees since he may have
thought that it wonld be difficult- at any rate, it will take a long time - for
him to obtain eviction of the said writ petitioners in accordance with the
correct procedure prescribed by law. [101-D, CJ
E 2. The story put forward by the third f!lSpondent with respect to the
circumstances in which he claims to have purchased the said decrees are
highly tell-tale. The whole story appears to be a fabricated one. Instead the
third respondent has himself manipulated to get the said decrees from
Gnwahati and Gaya Courts with a view to evict petitioners 1 and 2
F otherwise than in accordance with law. He has tried to over-reach the
courts and to circumvent and defeat the ends of justice by resorting to the
said tactic. It is necessary that not only sucb tactics be not allowPd to
succeed but persons indulging in them should be dealt with appropriately.
In such a situation, Court is not inclined to accept that this writ petition
G under Article 32 is not maintainable. When such a blatant abuse of process
of courts and judicial system comes to the notice of this Court, it has the
power, indeed the duty, to rectify it whether the power to do so is traced
to Articles 32, 136 or 142 of the Constitution. Accordingly the following
directions are issued:- [101-H, 102-A-C]

H (i) The impugned decrees are declared inexecutable. Petitioners
,, __

JHUMMAN v. C.B.I. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.) 97

1 and 2 shall not be evicted from the shops in execution of the A
said decrees; [102-E]

(ii) The third respondent shall pay as costs Rupees one lakh
which shall be paid to Writ Petitioners 1 and 2 - rupees fifty
thousands each; and [102-H]
B
(iii) the third respondent or any other person claiming under or
through him shall not be entitled to evict the Writ Petitioners
1 to 4 from the shops in their occupation except in accordance
with law. (103-B]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 487 of C
1994.

(U oder Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

M.C. Bhandare and R.P. Gupta (Intervenor) with him for the D
Petitioners.

K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, K.G. Bhagat, P.K. Jain,
T.C. Sharma and P. Parmeswaran with them for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This writ petition brings to light a serious
abuse of process of court - indeed an abuse of the process of more than
one court - indulged in by certain unscrupulous persons. Since the facts
of the case are themselves demonstrative of the said abuse perpetrated by
Respondent No. 3, we would set them out first. F

The four writ petitioners are the tenants of four shops comprised in
property bearing No. WZ-93, Titarpur, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-
110027, while the third respondent is occupying the fifth shop as a tenant.
According to the petitioners, one Siyaram Gupta was the owner of the said
five shops. On his death in or about 1983, his· wife, Smt. Urmila Devi and G
her three daughters became the owners. Towards the end of the year 1992,
the petitioners say, the landlady offered to sell the shops to the respective
tenants. Three of the petitioners purchased the three shops occupied by
them. Sale deeds were also executed in their favour. After the death of
Smt. Urmila Devi, the petitioners say, the third respondent, Sri Sangat H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [~995j 3 S.C.R.

A Singh started declaring himself as the owner of all the five shops and
demanded rent from the petitioners which they resisted.

The petitioners complained that wi.th a view to get the writ
petitioners evicted from the shops otherwise than by due process of law,
B the third respondent resorted to a devious device. Two decrees were
obtained against the Petitioners I and 2 - one from the Court of Assistant
District Judge-I at Gauhati against the first petitioner and the other from
the Sub-Judge-I, Gaya (Bihar) against the second petitioner's father. The
decree from the Gauhati court is dated May 18, 1994 in Arbitration Suit
No. 47 of 1994 making an award the rule of the Court. The award is said
C to have been obtained by one Sri Bhupinder Singh, S/o Sri Harcharan
Singh, Rio Sri Mantapur, Bhangaghar, Gauhati against Sri Jhumman Singh,
S!o Sri Chadda Singh, Rio Titar Pur, New Delhi (the first writ petitioner
in this writ petition). The decree says that the defendant, Sri Jhumman
Singh shall pay a sum of Rupees fifty thousand plus interest @ twelve per
D cent per annum from April 1, 1992 till the day of payment to Sri llhupinder
Singh and shall also hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property
bearing Shop No. 4 forming part of premises WZ 93/4 situated at Titar
Pur, Main Najafgarh Road, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. A site plan is
attached to the said decree specifying Shop No. 4 which the defendant to
the said decree was to hand over to the plaintiff therein. The other decree
E passed by Sub-Judge-1st, Gaya is also a decree making an award the rule
of the court. The award which has been made a rule of the Court directs
inter alia, that Sri Ala Noor S/o Sri Amir Bux, Rio Titarpur, New Delhi
shall hand over to the plaintiff therein peaceful vacant possession of the
Shop No. 3 forming part of property No. 93/3, Titar Pur, Main Najafgarh
F Road, Tagore Garden, New Delhi - 27 (specified in the annexed plan)
within fifteen days of the said Award being made a rule of the Court. In
default, the plaintiff, Sri Ravi Raj Singh, was held entitled to execute the
said decree and recover the possession. Execution was taken out of the
said two decrees and then transferred to Delhi for execution. Petitioners
I a•. d 2 came to know of the said decrees only when the Bailiff, came along
G with the warrants of delivery of possession of the said premises. On account
of the resistance put up by the petitioners, supported by the neighbours,
the Bailiff could not execute the decrees on that day. On verification from
the Court records, the petitioners say, they came to know the particulars
of said decrees. Petitioners 1 and 2 say that they had nothing to do with
H the persons shown as plaintiffs in the said decrees, had no dealings with
JHUMMAN v. C.B.I. [JEEVAN REDDY. J.] 99

them much less was there any dispute between them either at Gauhati, A
Gaya or anywhere else. They even doubt whether any such persons really
exist. According to them, the whole thing is a fabrication indulged in by
third respondent to get the Petitioners 1 and 2 evicted surreptitiously. They
submit that obtaining the said fraudulent decrees and the manner in which
they were sought to be executed and the petitioners sought to be evicted
from their shops is the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the third
B
respondent. It amounts to criminal offence besides a gross abuse of
process of the Court. Accordingly, they pray for issuance of an appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the C.B.l. to enquire and investigate into
the circumstances in which the aforesaid decrees were passed and to take
appropriate action against the persons responsible therefor. c
The writ petition was entertained by this Court on September 5,
1994 and stay of dispossession pursuant to the aforesaid arbitral awards
granted.

D
The third respondent, Sri Sangat Singh, has appeared and filed a
counter-affidavit. He states that he is the owner of the shops in occupation
of the writ petitioners by virtue of the sale deed( s) executed by the
aforementioned landlady in his fav<iur in the year 1992. He admits that the
petitioners were tenants in respect of the four shops under Smt. Urmila
Devi but denies the petitioners' claim of title. Against the third writ E
petitioner, Sri Vijay Kumar Behl, he says, he has ftled a suit (Suit No. 97
of 1993) seeking his eviction. In the written statement, he states,. Vijay
Kumar Behl has admitted the ownership of Smt. Urmila Devi. With respect
to the circumstances in which he took out execution of the aforesaid two
decrees against Petitioners 1 and 2, the third respondent has made the F
following averments, which are better set out in his own words:

''(2) It is submitted that one Bhupender Singh of Gauhati and other
Rabi Raj from Gaya contacted the replying respondent and told
him that they want to execute a decree against Jhumman Singh
and Alanur therefore after execution of decree they will give the G
shop to some body else and will get pagari. The deponent told
them that he is the owner of the shops therefore will not allow any
f third person to enter in his shops therefore the deponent asked
them to sell the decree to the deponent and execute the Power
of Attorney in his favour. The replying respondent paid them Rs. H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 3 S.C.R.

A 20,000 each after taking loan from their friends and filed the case
for execution of decree ..... .

(9) That the contents of para 11, 12, 13 of the writ petition are
denied. It is submitted that the replying respondent is the owner
of the disputed property and the petitioners wants to grab the
B petitioner's property. It is submitted when he came to know that
two persons on Shri Bhupender Singh and Sh. Ravi Raj Singh who
both used to come to Shri Jhumman Singh and Alanur occasionally
and later on when their relation became very strained they came
to the respondent and told him that they had obtained decree
c against the petitioners and after execution of decree they will give
the shops to third person on pagari. The replying respondent
then requested them not to execute the decree as the he is owner
of the disputed shops but they did not accept the deponent request.

D The Bhupinder Singh and Ravi Raj Singh executed the power of
attorney in favour of the replying respondent and gave him the
power to executed the decree in their behalf. It is vehementally
denied that any signature or agreement was forged. Smt. Urmila
Devi also given on affidavit on 17.7.92. The true photocopies of
power of Attorney as Annexure VI collectively and the true copy
E
of collectively and the true copy of affidavit dated 17.7.92 is
Annexure-VII."

(Quoted from the paper-book)

F We must say at once that the story put forward by the third respon-
dent is incredulous, to say the least. It is delightfully vague in relevant
particulars. It is curious how the two plaintiffs, Bhupinder Singh of Gauhati
and Ravi Raj Singh of Gaya, who had obtained two identical decrees from
Gauhati and Gaya courts against Petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, simul-
taneously contacted the third respondent about the decrees obtained by
G them and how both of them made identical statements to third respon-
dent that after executing the decrees they will give the shops to some other
persons and get 'pagri'. What is more curious is that the third respondent,
who claims to have become the owner of all the said four shops in the year '
1992 itself having purchased them from Smt. Urmila Devi did not protest
H against the third parties seeking to evict, what according to him, are his
JHUMMAN v. C.B.I. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 101
tenants from the premises owned by him and their proposal to lease them A
out to third parties and collect 'pagri' themselves. One would have ex-
pected the third respondent to question immediately the right of those
third parties to evict his tenants and obtain possession of the shops with
which they had nothing to do and which, according to him, are his own
properties. Not only did he not do that, he, without any demur, purchased B
the said decrees from the said two persons paying them Rupees twenty
thousand each and obtained Powers of Attorney from them to enable him
to execute the said decrees. The whole story, every bit of it, appears to be
a fabricated one meriting no consideration whatsoever. It is abundantly
clear that the said stratagem was resorted to by the third respondent with
a view to obtain the surreptitious eviction of the 1st and 2nd petitioners C
in eJ01Cution of the said spurious decrees since he may have thought that
it would be difficult - at any rate, it will take a long time - for him to obtain
eviction of the said writ petitioners in a straight-forward manner, i.e., in
accordance with the correct procedure prescribed by law. We are of the
opinion that the manner in which the said decrees were obtained and D
sought to be put in execution by the third respondent through the Court
at Delhi is a clear case of abuse of process of courts.

Sri M.C. Bhandare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
submits that such fraudulent proceedings are becoming rampant·in the
Courts at Delhi and it is necessary in the interest of justice that persons E
indulging in such proceedings should be dealt with severely. He, therefore,
requests that that C.B.I. be asked to investigate and prosecute the persons
responsible for perpetrating <he said fraud. On the other hand, Sri K.G.
Bhagat, learned counsel for the third respondent, submitted that this writ
petition is wholly misconceived as also the prayer made in the wrii petition.
F
He says that the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure to
be followed in cases of complaint of the nature made by the writ petitioners
herein and that a writ petition wider Article 32 of the Constitution of India
is wholly inappropriate. He says that the petitioners are not seeking to
enforce any of their fundamental rigbts and hence, the writ petition is itself
no maintainable in law. He also submits that the third respondent has G
bonafide purchased the decrees and put them in execution and is not guihy
of any criminal offence or abuse of process of Court.

We are of the opinion that the story put forward by the third
respondent with respect to the circumstances in which he claims to have H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A purchased the said decrees are highly tell-tale. The whole story appears to
be a fabricated one. It is evident that the third respondent has himself
manipulated to get the said decrees from Gauhati and Gaya Courts with a I
view to evict Petitioners 1 and 2 otherwise than in accordance with the
proper procedure prescribed by law. It is clear beyond any doubt that the
B third respondent has tried to over-reach the courts and to circumvent and ·
defeat the ends of justice by resortiog to the said tactic. It is necessary that
not only such tactics be not allowed to succeed but persons indulgiog in
them should. be dealt with appropriately. In such a situation, we are not
inclined to agree with Sri Bhagat that this writ petition under Article 32 is
not maintainable. When such a blatant abuse of process of courts and
C judicial system comes to the notice of this court, it has the power, indeed
the duty, to rectify it whether the power to do so is traced to Articles 32,
136 or 142 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the following directions are
made:

(i) The decrees aforementioned, viz., (1) between Sri Bhupinder
D Singh, S/o Sri Harcharan Singh, R/o Sri Mantapur, Bhangaghar, Gauhati
Versus Sri Jhumman Singh, S/o Sri Chadda Singh, R/o Titar Pur, New
Delhi in Arbitration Suit No 47 of 1994 passed by the Court of Assistant
y
District Judge-I at Gauhati and (2) between Sri Ravi Raj Singh, S/o Sri
Iqbal Singh, R/o Church Road, Gaya Versus Ala Noor, S/o Sri Amir Bux,
• E R/o WZ-42, Titar Pur, New Delhi are declared 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 said decrees in execution
of the said decrees.

F (ii) The third respondent, Sri Sangat Singh, shall pay costs of this
writ petition assessed at Rupees one lakh. The said amount shall be
deposited in this Court within one month from today. On such deposit, the
said amount shall be paid to Writ Petitioners 1 and 2 (Rupees fifty
thousand each). If the third respondent fails to deposit the said amount
within the period prescribed, this order shall be executable and be ex-
G ecuted as a decree of the civil court by and at the instance of Petitioners
1 and 2 either jointly or separately, as the case may be.

(iii) The third respondent and/or any other person claimiog under or
through him shall not be entitled to evict the Writ Petitioners 1 to 4 from
H the shops in their occupation forming part of premises No. WZ-93, Titar
JHUMMAN v. C.B.l. [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 103
Pur, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi except in accordance with law, viz., by A
approaching a cou.-t at Delhi having territorial jurisdiction either in accord-
ance with the Rent Control Act or through an ordinary civil action, as the
case may be.

(iv) The petitioners are free to take such proceedings against the
third respondent, civil or criminal, as are open to them in law. · B

We make it clear that we did not intend to and we do not express
any opinion on the pleas of the writ petitioners or of the third respondent
with respect to their claim of having purchased the said shop or shops, or
with respect to their respective claims of ownership of the said shops.
c
The writ petition is allowed mthe above terms. Costs as indicated
above.

T.N.A Petition allowed