Execution of a decree obtained by suppressing the filing of an appeal constitutes a fraud on the court.

In brief

The question

Whether the execution of a decree based on a false representation regarding the pendency of an appeal constitutes an abuse of process of law and fraud on the court.

The court held

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the orders dated 27.11.2025 in E.A.No.06 of 2025 and E.P.No.77 of 2025.

It also directed

The Court directed the parties to maintain *status-quo ante* (restoring the position prior to the delivery order of 25.09.2025) until the Appellate Court decides on the petitioners' interlocutory application for stay.

The first respondent was granted liberty to file a fresh E.P. only after the outcome of the stay application in the first appeal.

The Court also ordered the High Court Legal Services Committee to pay ₹10,000 to the Legal Aid Counsel for the second respondent.

01Facts

The first respondent (plaintiff) obtained a decree for declaration and recovery of possession against the petitioners (defendants) in O.S.No.54 of 2010 on 28.02.2025.

p. 2

The petitioners filed an appeal with a 5-day delay condonation application (I.A.No.1 of 2025), and notice was served on the first respondent on 28.08.2025.

p. 15

Despite knowledge of the pending appeal proceedings, the first respondent filed an Execution Petition (E.P.No.77 of 2025) on 22.09.2025, falsely stating that no appeal had been preferred.

p. 16

The Executing Court dispensed with notice under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC, ordered delivery of possession on 25.09.2025, and subsequently suo motu ordered police protection.

p. 11, 16

The Amina effected delivery on 24.11.2025 with police aid while the property was locked and household articles were inside.

p. 17

On 27.11.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the petitioners' stay application (E.A.No.06 of 2025) as infructuous and terminated the E.P.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the execution of a decree based on a false representation regarding the pendency of an appeal constitutes an abuse of process of law and fraud on the court.

p. 16/para 18

ii.Whether the Executing Court and the Amina committed procedural irregularities by ordering and seeking police protection without recording reasons or verifying obstruction.

p. 17/para 19

03Law Applied

Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC, which stipulates that filing an appeal does not automatically stay execution unless ordered by the Appellate Court.

p. 12

The principle from *Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar* regarding the necessity of a stay order.

p. 12

The guidelines from *Abdul Sukhure Bhai v. Durai Kuppusway* [2006 (2) CTC 211], which mandate that police aid is not to be granted mechanically and the Court must record specific reasons for such an order.

p. 6

The doctrine that suppression of material facts and misleading the Court to obtain an order amounts to fraud.

p. 18

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 21 Section 41

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the first respondent committed a "fraud played on the court" by claiming no appeal was filed despite having received notice of the delay condonation application in the appeal.

p. 18

The Court found that the Executing Court showed "enormous interest" in advancing the proceedings based on this falsehood.

p. 16

Regarding the delivery process, the Court noted that the Amina exceeded his limits by seeking police protection at the first instance without any evidence of obstruction, violating established judicial guidelines.

pp. 17-18

The Court determined that the combined effect of the first respondent’s suppression of facts and the Executing Court’s procedural haste resulted in a "glaring procedural violation" that necessitated setting aside the delivery.

p. 17