Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings: High Court used Article 227 to correct abuse and permit appeal on merits.

Fraud vitiates judicial proceedings, and an ex parte decree obtained by extrinsic fraud is a nullity. The High Court held that where the plaintiff's managing partner acted in both capacities, procured service on himself, arranged counsel for the defendant company, and allowed the suit to proceed ex parte without disclosing the true position, this amounted to serious abuse of process. It further held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is wide enough to correct such injustice despite technical objections, and that oral evidence was unnecessary on the condonation issue in these circumstances. The revision was allowed, the limitation issue was set aside, delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was left to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the appellate court's orders and condone the delay, where the ex parte decree was alleged to have been obtained by fraud on the court.

Analysis: The Court held that fraud vitiates judicial proceedings and that an ex parte decree obtained by extrinsic fraud is a nullity. It found that the facts disclosed a serious abuse of the judicial process, because the plaintiff's managing partner, while acting in both capacities, had procured service on himself, engaged counsel for the defendant company, and allowed the suit to proceed ex parte without disclosing the true position. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is sufficiently wide to correct such injustice and is not confined by technicalities where fraud is apparent. It further held that the application for condonation of delay did not require oral evidence in these circumstances and that the appellate court should be guided to decide the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The Court allowed the revision, set aside the order framing an issue on limitation, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and left the appeal against the ex parte decree to be decided by the appellate court in accordance with law.

---