IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1056 of 2009 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 2757/2007) SMT. SAVITRI SHARMA W/O LATE LAKSHMAN SHARMA R/O VILLAGE- GORGAWA, P.S.- SHAHPUR, PATORI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR .... ....Petitioner/ Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY / COMMISSIONER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. M/S ACMECHEM AGENCIES THROUGH ITS ONE OF THE PARTNER SMT. SNEH SINGH, W/O NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, R/O DHARHARA KOTHI, RAJENDADHARI PATH, NAYA TOLA, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA 3. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, FRAZER ROAD, P.S.- KOTWALI, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA 4. NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH, S/O LATE SITARAM SINGH R./O DHARHARA KOTHI, RAJANADHARI PATNA, NAYA TOLA, P.S.- KADAM KUAN, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA 5. THE BANK OF BIHAR EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MOHALLA- BANKMEN COLONY, CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA ………….Respondents/ Respondents Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Baban Roy Prem Singh, Adv. For the Respondent No. 2 : 1. Md. Waliur Rahman, Adv. : 2. Mr. Sushant Praveen, Adv. For the Respondent No. 4 : 1. Mr. K.N. Choubey, Sr. Adv. : 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to A.G.-13 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT 2 (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN) 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal (“LPA” for short) has been filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 09.07.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2757 of 2009, the text of which, as corrected on 17.07.2009 for a typographical mistake, stands as follows — “After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents it is not understood as to how under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India this Court can re-open certain issue or order of 1998 passed by a civil court which is not subject matter of challenge. An I.A. has come to be filed only now with a prayer that fraud has been played against the petitioner and that should be the ground that every order passed thereafter should be undone. This Court expresses inability to entertain such a prayer. The I.A. as well as writ application is dismissed. Remedy lies before the appropriate court/forum and not before this Court.” 2. The brief facts leading up to the present L.P.A. may be narrated hereafter. 3. As far back as 1967, the appellant’s husband, Sri Lakshman Sharma, was allotted plot No. B-1 in Kankarbagh Colony, Patna. The adjacent plot No. B-5 was also purchased in 1971 by him for the benefit of their mentally retarded son. The appellant was later substituted in the place of her husband as nominee upon his death and was in quiet enjoyment and peaceful possession of the said two plots (aggregating to 5849 sq.ft.) along with an extended area (1901 sq.ft.) in front of plot No. B-1 which was also allotted to the appellant by the Bank of Bihar Employees Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd. (respondent No. 5). 3 4. The first seeds of dispute were sown when in March, 1987, the appellant’s husband, then alive, came to know that the two plots had been transferred on the basis of some forged transfer letters in favour of one Shri Narendra Pratap Singh (respondent No. 4) who had then taken possession of both plots. Such transfers were challenged vide Case No. 124/1987 (plot No. B-1) and Case No. 123/1987 (plot No. B-5), before the Registrar, Bihar Co-operative Societies, Patna. 5. Case No. 124/1987 relating to plot No. B-1 was decided in favour of the appellant by order dated 18.09.1989 which, in turn, was also confirmed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9112/1989. The other Case No. 123/1987 relating to plot No. B-5 remained pending for final disposal before the Joint Registrar, Bihar Co-operative Societies, Patna. 6. It appears that sometime in 1990, a suit bearing T.M.S. No. 306/1990 was instituted by the Union Bank of India (hereinafter, the “Bank”) for realization of the loan amount which had been sanctioned in favour of the partnership firm M/S Acmechem Agency, comprising five equal partners including the appellant, her elder son (now deceased), Smt. Sneh Singh (the wife of the respondent No. 4), and their two sons, Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh and Sri Gyanesh Pratap Singh. Such loan had been advanced against mortgage of certain immovable properties, some of which were in the names of Smt. Sheh Singh as one of the partners of the firm with her husband as one of the guarantors, while others were in the names of the appellant’s husband with his close relatives as guarantors. 7. On 24.09.1997, the entire agreed amount of Rs. 7.50 lacs against the Bank loan was deposited with the bank and as such T.M.S. No. 306/1990 came to be settled between the parties upon satisfaction of the loan. 8. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 had continued in illegal possession despite the order passed in Case No. 124/1987. The appellant approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11700/1996 for recovery of possession of the plots. The writ petition was allowed in November 1997, on the basis of which the appellant was finally able to resume possession over plot No. B-1 along with the extended area in February, 1998, 4 after a period of about 11 years of illegal possession by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter she was able to remain in peaceful possession till about September 2003. 9. It is stated that on 07.09.2003, the appellant came to learn from her tenants that the possession over plot No. B-1 had once again been taken over by the respondent No. 4 on the basis of some order said to have been passed in Execution Case No. 3/2001 in pursuance of the aforesaid T.M.S. No. 306/1990. The appellant states that fraud was committed by the respondent No. 4, when a petition was filed by him on 11.12.1997 in T.M.S. No. 306/1990 for transposing himself as a plaintiff in place of the Bank, claiming that the Bank’s loan had been liquidated by him. This was done without any notice either to the appellant or to the Bank. Moreover, the entire nature of the suit was sought to be changed along with the prayer, party position etc. at the instance of the respondent No. 4. 10. An order dated 26.02.1998 was thus obtained by the respondent No. 4 in T.M.S. No. 306/1990 behind the appellant’s back and the suit then proceeded ex-parte thereafter, with the respondent No. 4 as the transposed co-plaintiff. 11. In due course the T.M.S. No. 306/1990 came to be decreed on 16.08.2000 in favour of the respondent No. 4, pursuant to which, the two plots were auctioned in Execution Case No. 3/2001 and purchased by none other than the respondent No. 4 himself at what is alleged to be a throwaway price. 12. The appellant’s objection petitions dated 03.09.2003 and 01.11.2004 filed under Section 47 C.P.C. were dismissed on 23.04.2005 and 25.04.2005 respectively. A fresh application was again filed on 17.08.2005 under Section 47 C.P.C. in view of the liberty granted by this Court by its order dated 01.08.2005 in C.R. No. 937 of 2005 filed against the earlier dismissal of the objection petitions, but was however also dismissed on 16.12.2006 by the learned Sub Judge. 13. This led the appellant to file the instant C.W.J.C. No. 2757 of 2007 purportedly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein she prayed for quashing of the two orders, namely the order dated 26.02.1998 allowing the transposing 5 petition of the respondent No. 4, and the order dated 16.12.2006 passed in Execution Case No. 3/2001, both by the learned Sub-Judge, Patna. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order dated 26.02.1998 is unsustainable having been obtained by fraud. Consequently, the other impugned order dated 16.12.2006 should therefore, also be held not sustainable on the well settled principle that fraud negates all. 15. In support of her contention that the respondent No. 4 did indeed commit fraud in obtaining the order dated 26.02.1998 from the Lower Court, the Appellant has pointed out, among others, the following circumstances — (a) It transpires on a perusal of the order sheet of the Lower Court that no notice appears to have been issued to the Appellant or the Bank in respect of the application for transposition filed by the Respondent No. 4. (b) The aforesaid application for transposition appears to have been taken up for consideration and has been disposed of behind the Appellant’s back. (c) The entire nature of the suit was changed at the instance of the respondent No. 4 by his application dated 11.12.1997 when he sought transposition of his name as plaintiff. (d) The party position was changed in the suit, and the names of the wife and two sons of the Respondent No. 4 were deleted as defendants pursuant to the order dated 09.09.1998 passed on his amendment petition, which was also heard and allowed without due notice to the Appellant. (e) The Respondent No. 4 claimed to have liquidated the entire amount of the Bank loan agreed upon to enable himself to be transposed as plaintiff, whereas the Appellant has consistently been claiming that the loan had been repaid jointly by all the partners of the firm. 6 (f) Plot No. B-5 could not possibly have been auctioned during the pendency of Case No.123/1987 before the Joint Registrar, Bihar Co-operative Societies, and more so, without any prior notice to the appellant. (g) The said plot No. B-5 could not have been alienated without the Court’s permission, the same having been purchased for the benefit of the appellant’s retarded son, which fact was well within the knowledge of the respondent No. 4 but had deliberately been suppressed by him. (h) The extended area of 1901 sq.ft. in front of plot No. B-1 never formed part of any of the sale deeds mortgaged with the Bank, and the same had thus even ex-facie been fraudulently auctioned. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on Section 44 of the Evidence Act to submit that the order dated 26.02.1998 allowing transposition had been obtained by fraud, and inasmuch as all actions tainted by fraud are vitiated, any order passed or acts done in pursuance thereof have equally to be declared infirm and of no consequence. 17. The respondent No. 4 has appeared and has been heard. He has restricted the main plank of his attack only to the preliminary ground of maintainability of the L.P.A. itself. He submits that no L.P.A. is maintainable against a decision of the learned Single Judge passed in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such the present L.P.A. has necessarily to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has chosen not to travel into nor dispute the merits of the matter. 18. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties at length and also gone through the materials available on records. In view of the complexities involved, we called for the entire original records of the learned Lower Court and have examined the same in extenso. 19. It is necessary at the outset itself to deal with the objection of the respondent No. 4 as regards maintainability of the L.P.A. against the decision of the learned Single 7 Judge passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court may be reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience and ready reference: “10. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court.—And We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act made on or after the first day of February one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to Us, Our heirs or successors in Our or Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided.” 20. The question whether or not an LPA is maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court now stands covered by the unequivocal pronouncement of the Apex Court in Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors. Vs Radhikabai & Anr. [1986 Supp. SCC 401]. In that case, the Court was seized of the specific question as to whether an appeal lies under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court (which is in pari materia with clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court) to a Division Bench of two Judges from the judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. In a well considered and detailed judgment tracing the history of Letters Patent in our country and after considering the various judicial decisions available on the issue under consideration, the Apex Court concluded that an intra-court appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 is not barred but however, no such intra-court appeal could be maintained against 8 the judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 227 by reason of such appeal being specially barred under Letters Patent (para 104 of the judgment). 21. The aforesaid decision in Umaji’s case has since been consistently followed among the more recent line of such decisions. Reference may be made to Ramesh Chandra Sankla & Ors. vs Vikram Cement & Ors. [(2008) 14 SCC 58]; Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]; and Ashok K. Jha & Ors vs Garden Silk Mills Ltd & Anr. [(2009) 10 SCC 584]. 22. While on this aspect, the very latest decision in Fuerst Day Lawson Limited vs Jindal Exports Limited [(2011) 8 SCC 33] may also be touched upon and the observation in para 36 (iv) of the judgment as follows be taken note of. “If the pronouncement of the Single Judge qualifies as a “judgment”, in the absence of any bar created by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication, it would be subject to appeal under the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of the High Court.” The apparent divergence in view in the said case from the one taken in Umaji’s case is but illusory. A closer look at the facts and law involved in this decision shows that these differed from the earlier cases and that the above observation was made in a different context altogether. This was a case involving a statutory appeal under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the decision of a Single Judge rendered under that Act and the Court was not dealing with an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. The main question for consideration of the Court was whether a Letters Patent Appeal would be available regardless of the fact that no appeal was provided under the statute itself. This decision was rendered in a completely different setting which is distinguishable, and thus cannot be construed as a departure from the ratio of Umaji’s case. 9 23. The instant matter however, requires to be looked at from another angle altogether. The core issue to be considered is with regard to the true nature and character of the application filed before the learned Single Judge and to ascertain whether the same had been filed under Article 227, or whether the same was in fact a writ petition under Article 226 filed under a wrong nomenclature. 24. It is well settled that the true nature of the order passed by the Single Judge has to be ascertained. A right of appeal against such judgment cannot be taken away by the mere statement that power has been exercised under Article 227 if power is otherwise found to have been exercised under Article 226, as held in Ashok K. Jha & Ors Vs Garden Silk Mills Ltd & Anr. [(2009) 10 SCC 584] — “The vital factor for determination of maintainability of the intra-court appeal is the nature of jurisdiction invoked by the party and the true nature of the principal order passed by the Single Judge.” 25. Again, on the principles laid down in the case of M.M.T.C. Limited vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 8], it would not be proper to proceed merely upon the cause title or nomenclature of the writ petition described as being one under Article 227 of the Constitution. The real nature of controversy and the prayer involved must also be examined in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the application filed before the Single Judge indeed fell under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution. 26. Yet again upon a review of the various decisions on the subject, we find that the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal [(2008) 15 SCC 233], accepted the argument that nomenclature is of no consequence and that it was the nature of the relief sought for and the controversy involved which determines the Article which is applicable. The case therein was thus treated as falling under Article 226 rather than under Article 227, thereby concluding that the High Court had not been justified in holding the letters patent appeal as not maintainable. The writ appeal was accordingly directed to be heard by a Division Bench on merits. 10 27. On a perusal of the writ petition and the order passed thereon in the instant case, the emerging facts lead us to take the view that the true nature and character of the petition filed is relatable to Article 226, rather than to Article 227. The following aspects of the matter are particularly noteworthy — (a) The application has been filed under the civil writ jurisdiction of this Court and duly registered as a civil writ jurisdiction case (C.W.J.C.). This is prima-facie relatable to Article 226 inasmuch as an application under Article 227 cannot be termed as a writ petition, as clearly held in Shalini Shyam Shetty’s case [(2010) 8 SCC 329]. (b) Each of the reliefs claimed is for quashing of certain orders and for directions to release certain excess area of land and for obtaining possession over the two plots, and all of these are in the nature of reliefs which a Court ordinarily grants by issuance of writs under Article 226. (c) No prayer was made in the Writ Petition inviting the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the action of the Lower Court. There is thus nothing to suggest that this Court was called upon to ascertain whether the Lower Court had acted in any manner outside the bounds of its authority, which is the hallmark of its supervisory powers under Article 227. (d) The body of the order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge mentions both Articles 226 and 227, which clearly shows that he was considering the matter under both the Articles. His observation with regard to filing of an Interlocutory Application in course of the proceedings which was being heard in its ‘writ’ jurisdiction, as well as the dismissal of the petition as a ‘writ’ application, all go to show that he has passed orders on a writ petition, thus under Article 226. 28. At this juncture, the observations of the Supreme Court in para 107 in Umaji’s case (supra) may fruitfully be reproduced — 11 “In our opinion, where the facts justify a party in filing an application either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, and the party chooses to file his application under both these articles, in fairness and justice to such party and in order not to deprive him of the valuable right of appeal the court ought to treat the application as being made under Article 226, and if in deciding the matter, in the final order the court gives ancillary directions which may pertain to Article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under Article 226.” 29. The above quoted passage carries the clear pronouncement that if remedy is available under either Article 226 or 227 and a petition is filed citing both Articles 226 and 227, benefit ought to enure, as far as possible, in favour of maintaining an intra- court appeal by construing such petition to have been filed under Article 226 if it is so in letter and spirit, rather than disentitling a person from the remedy of appeal. 30. There can be no difficulty in applying the same principle in respect of an application filed under the nomenclature of Article 227 alone, where the true nature and character thereof is found to fall under Article 226. For the reasons already stated hereinabove, therefore, we treat the petition filed by the Appellant as being under Article 226 and the present LPA is accordingly maintainable. 31. On merits, we find considerable force in the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The facts and circumstances adverted to are indeed suggestive of at least a prima facie case of fraud having been committed by the respondent No. 4, strengthened further by his repeated attempts at securing control over the Appellant’s property. The trials and tribulations faced by the hapless widow of advancing years has even found narration in the judgment of this Court passed earlier in CWJC No. 11700/1996 aforesaid. 32. We are also entirely mindful of the well recognized doctrine that fraud unravels everything, as we are of the pristine maxim “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant”, that is, fraud and justice never dwell together, revisited in Meghmala vs. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383]. 12 33. In our view, therefore, the objections u/s 47 CPC filed by the appellant on 17.08.2005 before the learned Sub Judge raising the plea of fraud ought not to have been dismissed as perfunctorily done in his order dated 16.12.2006 on the footing that nothing new had been brought on records by the Appellant, without however appreciating that the earlier petition u/s 47 CPC was dismissed as the same was not maintainable owing to various defects therein. More crucially, the Learned Sub-Judge did not at all record a finding on the main contentions relating to fraud having been committed upon the Appellant and nor those in respect of the failure of Natural Justice. 34. As regards the impugned order of the Learned