Patna High Court
Shree Kant Singh @ Srikant SinghversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
A review cannot be entertained where the alleged misstatements are supported by the annexures filed and no new material evidence or apparent error is demonstrated.
Summary
The petitioner, Shree Kant Singh, filed a civil review seeking to set aside the High Court's order dated 14‑10‑2025 in CWJC No.15622/2025, alleging that the original writ petition contained false statements and suppressed material facts, including the existence of Title Suit No.1213/2023. The respondents contended that the statements in paragraphs 7‑10 of the writ were supported by annexures filed with the petition and that no suppression occurred. The Court examined the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits review only on discovery of new evidence, apparent error, or any other sufficient reason. It held that the alleged misstatements were based on the annexures and that no new or material evidence was uncovered, nor was there any apparent error in the original order. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the review application and dismissed it. The decision reaffirmed that a review cannot be entertained merely on allegations of fraud unless substantiated by fresh, material evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner proved that the original writ petition contained fraudulent misrepresentations or suppression of material facts warranting a review.
- Whether the grounds pleaded fall within the limited categories of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Tenancy Act — s. 48E
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order XLVII Rule 1
Subjects
- fraud
- suppression of facts
- review jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure Code
- land reforms
- misrepresentation
- order review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.293 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15622 of 2025
======================================================
Shree Kant Singh @ Srikant Singh, Son of Late Ravi Shankar Singh, Resident
of Village- Sarthua, P.S. Udwantnagar, District-Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and
Land Reforms Department New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.
3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ara, Bhojpur.
4. The Circle Officer, Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur at Ara.
5. The Officer in Charge cum S.H.O., Udwant Nagar, Bhojpur at Ara.
6. Barmeshwar Singh, Son of Late Kishun Singh, Resident of Village-Sarthua,
P.S. Udwantnagar, District-Bhojpur at Ara.
7. Kumar Ajit, Son of Deo Nath Singh, Resident of Village-Sarthua, P.S.
Udwantnagar, District-Bhojpur at Ara, at presently residing at C-19,
Akanksha Kunj, Civil Centre, Bhilai Durg, Chhatisgarh- 490006.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-1, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Aniket, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. D.S. Vidyarthi, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, (SC-23)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 18-03-2026 The instant civil review application has been filed by
the petitioner with a prayer to review the order dated 14.10.2025
passed in CWJC No. 15622 of 2025.
2. Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-1, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner by referring to the paragraphs nos.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
2/9
7, 8, 9 and 10 of the writ application in CWJC No. 15622 of
2025, submits that in these paragraphs, the petitioner of the said
writ suppressed the material facts concerned to the Amin report
and thereby misled this Court and in actual, no measurement of
the land in question had been done and in this regard, wrong
submission was made and accordingly, the petitioner of the writ
application, who is O.P. No. 7 in the present review application,
committed fraud upon this Court. It is further submitted that the
said O.P. did not give the details of the Title Suit No. 1213 of
2023 relating to the same issue before this Court in the writ
application and thereby also misleading this Court and the
disclosure of the said Title Suit was very important, and its
suppression affected this Court while passing the final order
dated 14.10.2025 in the writ application. In support of these
submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of
(i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS. vs.
Jagannath (Dead) By LRS. & Ors. reported in 1993 SCC
Online SC 318, relevant paragraphs number 1, 5 and 6 of the
judgment upon which reliance has been placed are being
reproduced as under:-
“1. Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
3/9
Justice Edward Coke of England about three
centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of
law that a judgment or decree obtained by
playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non
est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree-
by the first court or by the highest court- has
to be treated as a nullity by every court,
whether superior or inferior. It can be
challenged in any court even in collateral
proceedings.
5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent
error. The short question before the High
Court was whether in the facts and
circumstances of this case, Jagannath
obtained the preliminary decree by playing
fraud on the court. The High Court, however,
went haywire and made observations which
are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the
High Court that “there is no legal duty cast
upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true
case and prove it by true evidence”. The
principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be
pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that
it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of
dishonest litigants. The courts of law are
meant for imparting justice between the
parties. One who comes to the court, must
come with clean hands. We are constrained to
say that more often than not, process of the
court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-
evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of life
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
4/9
find the court-process a convenient lever to
retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person, who's case is
based on falsehood, has no right to approach
the court. He can be summarily thrown out at
any stage of the litigation.
6. The facts of the present case leave no
manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the
preliminary decree by playing fraud on the
court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception
with the design of securing something by
taking unfair advantage of another. It is a
deception in order to gain by another's loss. It
is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
Jagannath was working as a clerk with
Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in
the court auction on behalf of Chunilal
Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed
the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in
favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the
property in dispute. He knew that the
appellants had paid the total decretal amount
to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without
disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for
the partition of the property on the ground that
he had purchased the property on his own
behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar.
Non-production and even non-mentioning of
the release deed at the trial is tantamount to
playing fraud on the court. We do not agree
with the observations of the High Court that
the appellants-defendants could have easily
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
5/9
produced the certified registered copy of Ex.
B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant,
who approaches the court, is bound to produce
all the documents executed by him which are
relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a
vital document in order to gain advantage on
the other side then he would be guilty of
playing fraud on the court as well as on the
opposite party."
(ii) State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao
reported in 2005 SCC Online SC 1079, relevant paragraph no.
8 of the judgment upon which reliance has been placed is being
reproduced as under:-
8. By “fraud” is meant an intention to
deceive; whether it is from any expectation of
advantage to the party himself or from ill-will
towards the other is immaterial. The
expression “fraud” involves two elements,
deceit and injury to the person deceived.
Injury is something other than economic loss,
that is, deprivation of property, whether
movable or immovable, or of money, and it
will include any harm whatever caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or such
others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-
pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the
deceiver, will almost always cause loss or
detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare
cases where there is a benefit or advantage to
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
6/9
the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the
deceived, the second condition is satisfied.
[See Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. and Indian
Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd."
(iii) Rama Sahni and Anr Vs. The State of Bihar
and Ors. reported in (2010) 1 PLJR 499 relevant paragraph
no.11 of the judgment upon which reliance has been placed is
being reproduced as under:-
"11. The facts aforesaid indicate that the
petitioners have got an order in their favour
by suppressing certain relevant facts with
respect to this case. The claim of the
petitioners that their ancestors and thereafter
the petitioners have been in possession over
the lands since 1922 is apparently falsified by
the facts that the lands have passed through
several hands and it was as far back as in the
year 1922 that the petitioners' forefathers
were inducted as bataidars. It is also apparent
that after the mortgage was redeemed, the
forefathers of the petitioners were not retained
as bataidars and as such it is difficult to
believe that after a gap of several decades,
they have filed an application claiming that
they are the bataidars of the lands more so
when their application under Section 48(E) of
the Act has been rejected. It is true that a
second revision application will not lie in view
of the amendment in the Act, however, the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
7/9
Court cannot ignore and shut its eyes to the
facts that have been brought on record. It is
well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates
all actions and once it is noticed by the Court
that there is suppression of facts and orders
have been obtained by one or the other party
by such suppression of a relevant document,
as in this case, this Court cannot justify or
uphold the orders so obtained. The very basis
of the claim for possession and title in this
case is that the petitioners claim to be
bataidars and as such they have had prayed
that the jamabandi of the respondents be
cancelled and their names be entered in the
Register-II. If it was brought to the notice of
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector that the
petitioners have lost their claim of being
bataidars, and their application was rejected
by a competent authority under Section 48E of
the Bihar Tenancy Act, the Land Reforms
Deputy Collector could not have entertained
their application for cancellation of the
jamabandi.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the O.P. No.7 submits that there was no suppression on the part
of this O.P. in the writ application no. 15622 of 2026 as the
statements made in the paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 were based
on the Annexures, which were also filed with the writ
application.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
8/9
4. Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel
appearing for the State-respondents, submits that State has filed
its counter affidavit in this review application and no
suppression of the relevant facts was made by the O.P. No.7 in
the writ application no. 15622 of 2025.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the relevant
materials. The provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of
Civil Procedure deal with the review jurisdiction of a Court and
according to these provisions, an order can be reviewed, only in
three circumstances:
i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the
knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at
the time when the order was passed.
ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
iii) any other sufficient reason.
6. The petitioner's counsel has mainly taken the
ground for review that the O.P. No.7 made false statements
mentioned in the paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the writ
petition and thereby misleading this Court and the second
ground is that the details of the Title Suit No. 1213 of 2023
pertaining to the land in question were not disclosed by the said
Patna High Court C. REV. No.293 of 2025(4) dt.18-03-2026
9/9
O.P. before this Court. After perusing the paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9
and 10 of the writ petition, this Court finds that the statements
made therein were based on the Annexures and further, by the
order dated 14.10.2025, this court simply directed the D.C.L.R.
Ara to ensurer compliance with his own order as per the
provisions of law and admittedly, at that time, the said order was
not under challenge before any other competent Court. This
court finds no substance in the aforesaid grounds as firstly the
statements made in the said paragraphs relate to the facts based
on the Annexures and secondly, they relate to the contents of
those Annexures and this Court is of the view that the O.P. No.7
did not mislead this Court while making submissions based on
these Annexures and accordingly, this Court finds no merit in
this review application, so, it stands dismissed.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rajiv/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.