which reads as under:-
“27. If a judgment obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and is
to be treated as non est by every court, superior or inferior, it would be
strange logic to hear that an enquiry into the question whether a judgment
was secured by playing fraud on the court by not disclosing the
necessary facts relevant for the adjudication of the controversy before
the court is impermissible. From the above judgments, it is clear that such
an examination is permissible. Such a principle is required to be applied
with greater emphasis in the realm of public law jurisdiction as the mischief
resulting from such fraud has larger dimension affecting the larger public
interest.” (Emphasis supplied by us).
21. We agree that when there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of
necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired
into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent to deceive that a conclusion
of fraud could be arrived at. A mere concealment or non-disclosure without intent
to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive would
not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. To conclude in a blanket
manner that in every case where relevant facts are not disclosed, the decree
obtained would be fraudulent, is stretching the principle to a vanishing point.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11491 OF 2016
HARJAS RAI MAKHIJA (D) THR. LRS. .
VS.
PUSHPARANI JAIN & ANR.
Citation:(2017) 2 SCC 797
