JHUMMAN SINGH AND ORS. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 30-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
c 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.