The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, has dismissed an appeal against a trial-court order that had rejected a suit seeking declaration that the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict, dated October 9, 2019, was vitiated by fraud
The appellant, a practising advocate, had claimed that a former CJI’s public remarks showed the Ayodhya judgment was delivered in terms suggested by a litigant, which tantamount to unlawful interference.
However, the trial court had dismissed the suit for want of locus standi and cause of action, holding that the suit is barred by law. The trial, consequently, ordered ₹1 lakh costs. The District Judge, Dharmender Rana, upheld the dismissal of the trial court, and enhanced costs to a total of ₹6 lakh, directing deposit with the DLSA.
The Court found the plaintiff had locus to sue as a member of the Muslim community, but rejected the core claim on following grounds:
• The Ayodhya judgment’s text makes a clear legal distinction between juristic personality and divine manifestation;
• The appellant’s reading conflated prayerful remarks with judicial decision-making; and
• The averments did not disclose the kind of deliberate, external deception required to establish fraud on court.
The court held the plaint did not disclose a maintainable cause of action and was properly rejected by trial court under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The judgment also flagged procedural and legal bar that the suit failed to implead necessary parties in accordance with Order I Rule 9 CPC and impermissibly named the former CJI as defendant rather than joining proper parties or representatives. The Court observed that the Judges (Inquiry) & Protection framework and Article 141 principles constrain collateral attacks on final Supreme Court judgments; further, the Judges’ Protection Act and settled precedents limit civil proceedings against judicial functions performed in official capacity.
Strongly criticising the appellant’s conduct, the Court described the litigation as frivolous and luxurious, stressing that members of the Bar must not file or sponsor baseless suits. Relying on Supreme Court authority endorsing exemplary costs in frivolous litigation, the Bench held costs were warranted to deter misuse of process and protect judicial time. The court has directed recovery steps if the amount is not deposited within 30 days.
Cases Relied On
(i) Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi Vs. NCT of Delhi 2013 SCC Online Delhi 4788
(ii) Surender Tomar (Thr. Lr Smt. Saroj) Vs. DDA and Anr. CRP No. 142/14, CM No. 15293/14 and 15294−15295/14 date of decision: 16.09.2014
(iii) Ram Rameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, ((MANU/SC/0169/2011)
(iv) T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467
