http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: JHUMMAN SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/03/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2083            1995 SCC  (3) 420  JT 1995 (3)   360        1995 SCALE  (2)546

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.: 1.   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. 2.   The 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. 3.   The 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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. 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 passed by SubJudge-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,  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. 4.   The  writ  petition was entertained by  this  Court  on September 5, 1994 and stay of dispossession pursuant to  the aforesaid arbitral awards granted. 5.   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 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. Against 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

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:               "(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 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.......               (9)   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.               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               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) 6.   We  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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 of courts. 7.   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 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. 8.   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 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  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

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 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 (2) between 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. (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 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. (iii)The  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. (iv)The  petitioners  are  free  to  take  such  proceedings against the third respondent civil or criminal, as are  open to them in law. 9.   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. 10.  The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.  Costs as indicated above. 365