Singh & Ors Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors  INSC 207 (30 March 1995)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Sen, S.C. (J) B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.:
1995 AIR 2083 1995 SCC (3) 420 JT 1995 (3) 360 1995 SCALE (2)546
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.
four writ petitioners are the tenants of four shops comprised in property
bearing No. WZ-93, Titarpur, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-1 10027, while the third
respondent is occupying the fifth shop as a tenant. According to the
petitioners, one Siyaram Gupta was the, own=of the said five shops. On his
death in or about 1983, his wife, Smt.Urmila Devi and 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 361 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 Singh started declaring himself as the owner of all the five shops
and demanded rent from the petitioners which they resisted.
petitioners complained that with a view to get the writ petitioners evicted
from the shops otherwise than by due process of law, the third respondent
resorted to a devious device. Two decrees were, obtained against the
Petitioners 1 and 2 - one from the Court of Assistant Dis- trict Judge-1 at Gauhati
against the first petitioner and the other from the SubJudge-1, 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 to have been obtained
by one Sri Bhupinder Singh, S/o Sri Harcharan Singh, R/o Sri Mantapur, Bhangaghar,
Gauhati against Sri Jhumman Singh, S/o Sri Chadda Singh, R/o 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 cent per annum from April 1, 1992 till the day of payment to Sri Bhupinder
Singh and shall also hand over peaceful vacant possession of the property
bearing Shop No.
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 passed by SubJudge-1st, Gaya is also a decree making
an award the rule of the court.
award which has been made a rule of the Court directs, inter alia, that Sri Ala
Noor S/o Sri Amir Bux, R/o Titarpur, New Delhi shall hand over to the plaintiff
therein peaceful vacant possession -of the Shop No.3 Conning part of property
No. 93/3, Titar Pur, Main Najafgarh 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 1 and 2 came to know of the said decrees only when the
Bailiff came along 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 the persons shown as plaintiffs in the said decree, had no dealings
with them much less was there any dispute between them either at Gauhati, 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 respondent. It
amounts to criminal offence besides a gross abuse of process of the Court.
Accordingly, they pray for issu- 362 ance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the C.B.I. to enquire and investigate into the
circumstances in which the aforesaid decrees were passed and to take
appropriate action against the persons responsible therefor.
writ petition was entertained by this Court on September 5, 1994 and stay of dispossession pursuant to the aforesaid
arbitral awards granted.
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 favour 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.
the third writ petitioner, Sri Vijay Kumar Behl, he says, he has filed 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 following
averments, which an: better set out in his own words:
It is submitted that one Bhupender Singh of Gauhati and other Rabi Raj from Gaya
contacted the replying respondent and told him that they wants to execute a
decree against Jhumman Singh and Alanur therefore after execution of decree
they will give the 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 third
person to enter in his shops therefore the deponent asked them to sell the
decree to th e deponent and execute the Power of Attorney in his favour. The
replying respondent paid them Rs. 20,000/- each after taking loan from their
friends and filed the case for execution of decree.......
That the contents of para 11, 12, 13 of the writ petition are denied. It is
sub- mitted that Be replying respondent is the owner of the disputed property
and the petitioner wants to grab the 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 Allanur occasionally and
later on when their relation became very strained they came to the respondent
and told him that they had obtained decree 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.
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 vehemently 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 of affidavit dated
17.7.92 is Annexure-VII." (Quoted from the paper-book)
must say at once that the story put forward by the third respondent 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 de- 363 crees from Gauhati
and Gaya courts against Petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, simultaneously
contacted the third respondent about the decrees obtained by them and how both
of them made identical statements to third respondent 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 against the third parties seeking to evict, what according
to him, are his tenants from the premises owned by him and their proposal to
lease them out to third parties and collect'pagri'themselves. One would have
expected 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 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 in execution 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
sought to be put in execution by the third respondent through the Court at Delhi is a clear case of abuse of process
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 indulging in such proceedings should be dealt with
severely. He, therefore, requests that C.B.I. be asked to investigate and
prosecute the persons responsible for perpetrating the said fraud. On the other
hand, Sri K.G.Bhagat, learned counsel for the third respondent, submitted that
this writ petition is wholly misconceived a,; also the prayer made in the writ
petition. lie 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 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
is wholly inappropriate. He says that the petitioners are not seeking to enforce
any of their fundamental rights and hence, the writ petition is itself not
maintainable in law. He also submits that the third respondent has bonafide
purchased the decrees and put them in execution and is not guilty of any
criminal offence or abuse of process of Court.
are of the opinion that the story put forward by the third respondent 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.
evident that the third respondent has himself ma- nipulated to get the said
decrees from Gauhati and Gaya Courts with a view to 364 evict Petitioners 1 and
2 otherwise than in accordance with the proper procedure prescribed by law. It
is clear beyond any doubt that the third respondent 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 such tactics be not allowed to
succeed but persons indulging 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 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:
The decrees aforementioned, viz.,
between Sri Bhupinder 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
District Judge-1 at Gauhati and
Sri Ravi Raj Singh, S/o Sri Iqbal Singh, R/ o Church Road, Gaya Versus Ala Noor, S/ o Sri Amir Bux, R/o WZ-42, Titar Pur, New Delhi are declared in executable 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.
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).
third respondent fails to deposit the said amount within the period prescribed,
this order shall be executable and be executed 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.
third respondent and/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 forming part of premises No.WZ-93, Titar Pur, Najafgarh Road, New
Delhi except in accordance with law, viz., by approaching a court at Delhi
having territorial jurisdiction either in accordance with the Rent Control Act
or through an ordinary civil action, as the case may be.
petitioners are free to take such proceedings against the third respondent
civil or criminal, as are open to them in law.
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.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Costs as indicated above.