The Supreme Court has withdrawn its ruling in a land dispute after it came on record that the favourable verdict was obtained through a fabricated settlement and a "ghost" respondent. A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi recently asked the apex court registry to conduct an inquiry and file a report within three weeks, detailing what transpired.
It also warned of an FIR to bring the guilty to book.
The bench on December 13, 2024 quashed the orders of a Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court based on a purported compromise agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.
However, it was learnt that the supposed respondent was an imposter, and the real respondent, Harish Jaiswal, who hails from Muzaffarpur in Bihar, had no idea of the proceedings.
Jaiswal discovered the Supreme Court order only when his son-in-law came across it on the court's website five months later.
He promptly approached the court through his lawyer, Gyanant Singh, alleging the order was obtained through fraud, deception, and suppression of material facts.
"The petitioner has not only acted in violation of legal and ethical norms but has also committed a fraud upon this court, which, if not rectified, will embolden such mala fide litigants to continue their deceitful practices," the plea said.
Notably, the original order recorded the appearance of four advocates for the fake respondent.
However, during the fresh hearing, a lawyer appearing for an advocate who had appeared previously, informed the bench that he is 80 years old and hadn't practised law in recent times.
The lawyers denied any involvement in the case or appearance before the court on the day of the order.
Adding to the suspicion, a caveat was filed in the name of the respondent, effectively preventing the issuance of a notice that would have alerted the real party about the ongoing proceedings.
"The court cannot be taken for a ride," the plea said, pointing out the seriousness of the fraud perpetrated on the judiciary.
Jaiswal, the original respondent in the case, alleged the December 13, 2024 order allowing a special leave petition effectively overturned a 2016 judgment of the Patna High Court on the basis of forged settlement agreement and fraudulent legal representation.
According to the plea, Jaiswal never entered into any compromise with the petitioner Bipin Bihari Sinha nor did he appoint any lawyer to appear on his behalf in the matter.
He claimed of being completely unaware of the Supreme Court proceedings until recently, when he learnt of the order through personal sources.
"The entire proceedings were manipulated to ensure that the applicant was kept in complete ignorance, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to be heard," the plea said.
It said the petitioner, in collusion with unnamed individuals, fabricated a compromise and engaged lawyers without his knowledge or consent.
This deception led the top court to believe that the dispute had been amicably resolved, it added.
It also warned of an FIR to bring the guilty to book.
The bench on December 13, 2024 quashed the orders of a Muzaffarpur trial court and the Patna High Court based on a purported compromise agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.
However, it was learnt that the supposed respondent was an imposter, and the real respondent, Harish Jaiswal, who hails from Muzaffarpur in Bihar, had no idea of the proceedings.
Jaiswal discovered the Supreme Court order only when his son-in-law came across it on the court's website five months later.
He promptly approached the court through his lawyer, Gyanant Singh, alleging the order was obtained through fraud, deception, and suppression of material facts.
"The petitioner has not only acted in violation of legal and ethical norms but has also committed a fraud upon this court, which, if not rectified, will embolden such mala fide litigants to continue their deceitful practices," the plea said.
Notably, the original order recorded the appearance of four advocates for the fake respondent.
However, during the fresh hearing, a lawyer appearing for an advocate who had appeared previously, informed the bench that he is 80 years old and hadn't practised law in recent times.
The lawyers denied any involvement in the case or appearance before the court on the day of the order.
Adding to the suspicion, a caveat was filed in the name of the respondent, effectively preventing the issuance of a notice that would have alerted the real party about the ongoing proceedings.
"The court cannot be taken for a ride," the plea said, pointing out the seriousness of the fraud perpetrated on the judiciary.
Jaiswal, the original respondent in the case, alleged the December 13, 2024 order allowing a special leave petition effectively overturned a 2016 judgment of the Patna High Court on the basis of forged settlement agreement and fraudulent legal representation.
According to the plea, Jaiswal never entered into any compromise with the petitioner Bipin Bihari Sinha nor did he appoint any lawyer to appear on his behalf in the matter.
He claimed of being completely unaware of the Supreme Court proceedings until recently, when he learnt of the order through personal sources.
"The entire proceedings were manipulated to ensure that the applicant was kept in complete ignorance, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to be heard," the plea said.
It said the petitioner, in collusion with unnamed individuals, fabricated a compromise and engaged lawyers without his knowledge or consent.
This deception led the top court to believe that the dispute had been amicably resolved, it added.
