Writ jurisdiction and fraud on the court can justify setting aside a decree despite an alternate remedy

Writ jurisdiction may still be exercised despite delay or an available statutory appeal where the impugned action is alleged to be illegal and vitiated by serious jurisdictional infirmity; the alternate-remedy rule is one of discretion, not an absolute bar. A civil decree may also be set aside where the record shows lack of ownership foundation, disregard of a statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction, and circumstances indicating fraud or collusion in the procurement of the decree. On that basis, the decree was quashed, the suit was remanded for fresh decision, and the writ was allowed in part.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite delay and the availability of an alternate remedy; (ii) whether the civil court decree was liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction and for having been obtained by fraud and collusion.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite delay and the availability of an alternate remedy.

Analysis: The delay was treated as sufficiently explained on the record. The existence of a statutory appeal did not oust writ jurisdiction where the impugned order was alleged to be illegal and vitiated by serious jurisdictional infirmities. The availability of another remedy was held to be a rule of discretion and convenience, not a bar to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in an appropriate case.

Conclusion: The objection based on delay and alternate remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court decree was liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction and for having been obtained by fraud and collusion.

Analysis: The suit land had already been declared surplus and vested in the State. The pleadings and the unrebutted record showed that the recorded owner was another person, while the plaintiff claiming title did not establish ownership or partition. The civil court did not first decide the jurisdictional objections under the special statutes and proceeded on the basis of a joint pursis and evidence recorded on the same day, without proper foundation or authority. In view of the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction, the requirement of notice, and the circumstances surrounding the hurried disposal, the impugned decree was found to have been procured through collusion and fraud on the court.

Conclusion: The decree was quashed and set aside and the suit was remanded for fresh decision by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment and decree could not be sustained in law, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication while the writ petition was allowed in part.

Ratio Decidendi: An order or decree obtained through fraud or collusion, or in disregard of a statutory bar on jurisdiction, can be set aside in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy.

---