LexVISHU VARDHAN @ VISHNU PRADHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1371 : 2025 INSC 884 Vishu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7777 of 2023) 23 July 2025 [Surya Kant, Dipankar Dutta* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the impugned order having merged with this Court’s order in Reddy Veerana’s case, as claimed by R, renders the present appeal which 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 the appellant 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 the appellant has engaged in forum shopping; and whether the R obtained the impugned order, as well as this Court’s order in Reddy Veerana’s case, by practising fraud and deception upon the courts and, thus, liable to be set aside/recalled. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Arts.32, 226 – Dispute in respect of ownership of land – Fraud played by one on courts to reap benefits – Land acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority in 2005 and now forms a part of Sector 18, NOIDA – Land jointly purchased in 1997 by R, one S and the appellant – Relying on joint ownership, the trio initiated various legal proceedings seeking multiple relief from time to time, before and after the acquisition of the land by NOIDA – Appellant’s case that R made several attempts to assert his exclusive ownership in proceedings where the appellant and S were not joined as parties; that in one such proceeding, R succeeded and the High Court, by the impugned order, declared him the sole owner – Appellant alleging the conduct * Author 1372 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of R as fraudulent, filed instant appeal, petition for review and application for recall: Held: Fraud unravels everything – R tailored a situation to suit his convenience by not impleading the appellant as a party with the sole intention of obtaining an order in respect of not only the quantum of compensation payable for acquisition of the subject land but also a declaration as to his entitlement thereto all, behind the appellant’s back, is all fraud – R’s failure before the High Court to disclose the earlier series of litigation where he consistently asserted joint ownership with the appellant and S being a fact having a bearing on the merits of the case, sufficient to vitiate the impugned order – Suppression of material facts before the High Court by R is writ large; highlights the fraudulent intent behind R’s claim however, his fraudulent conduct not confined to that forum alone – Rapid pleadings, exclusion of a necessary party, and abandonment of the suit clearly reflects a collusive effort by R to manufacture support for his claim of sole ownership – All this confirms that his deceptive practices date back over two decades – Judicial orders procured by R by subverting the judicial process through fraud and concealment of material facts cannot be permitted to stand – Fact of the appellant being a co-owner of the property could not have been discovered by either the High Court or this Court unless the same were placed before such courts – Impugned order and the decision of this Court in Reddy Veerana’s case procured by R are tainted by fraud and, thus, lack legal sanctity and validity – As regards the maintainability of petition, writ petition did not disclose violation of any of the 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 and, hence, is not maintainable – Writ petition cannot lie against a judicial order – There being no challenge to any judicial order, this ground of challenge rejected – Furthermore, this Court is not exercising any “intra-court appeal” jurisdiction – 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 have been found to be vitiated by fraud, the plea of R as regards the non-maintainability of the present proceedings based on the merger doctrine of no significance – When the Court has been the victim of fra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.