Delhi District Court
Adnan Hasan Kidwai vs M/S Choce Development Co. ( P ) Ltd And Ors on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by:-
Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, DHJS
CS DJ No. 620519/2016
CNR No:-DLCT01-010422-2016
1. Adnan Hasan Kidwai (Deceased)
Through His Legal Heirs
(i) Ritu Kidwai (wife),
(ii) Ambareen Gupta (Daughter),
(iii) Adnan Kidwai(son),
D-64, Panchsheel Enclave)
New Delhi-110017. .......Plaintiff
Vs.
1. M/s Choice International Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Registered Address at
House No. 40, DDA Flats, First Floor,
Vasant Enclave, New Delhi-110057.
(substituted in place of
M/s Choice Development Co. Pvt. Ltd,
G-8, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110016, Order dated 06.11.2019).
2. S.K. Chadha,
Managing Director,
M/s Choice Development Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
G-8 Green Park Extension
New Delhi-110016.
3. Tejvir Singh,
Chamber No. 578, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi-110001.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016
Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development
Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 1 of 57
4. Y.K. Dullar,
Chamber No. 603, 2nd Floor,
New Chamber Complex,
Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi. ......Defendants
Date of Institution:-12.08.2002
Date of conclusion
of final arguments:- 30.01.2026
Date of Judgment:- 24.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants with the following prayer(s);
(a) Declaring as a nullity, void for fraud and misrepresentation and not binding upon the plaintiff, the judgment and decree dated 01.09.1999 passed in summary suit No. 550/98 by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi and cancelling and setting aside the same alongwith any proceedings in execution thereof and restraining any legal process or reliance against the plaintiff on the basis of the said decree;
(b) Directing that the defendants No. 1 and 2 are further liable to restitution and to restore and refund to the plaintiff an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs and Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Nine and Paise Twenty Five Only (with interest at the rate of 24% per annum) that is, Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand and One Hundred and Ninety illegally extracted by the said defendants from the plaintiff, along with pendente lite interest at 24% per annum;
(c) Awarding damages including exemplary and punitive damages amounting to Rs. 40 lakhs and directing that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff for the injury caused to him by paying the said damages of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) along with pendente lite interest at 24% per annum with costs;
(d) Pass such other and further orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 2 of 57
2. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff expired, and his legal representatives were brought on record pursuant to the order dated 14.09.2005.
3. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint, in brief, are as under:-
Introducing Parties and a Summary of the Case
(a) That in September 1998, Sh. S K Chadha (defendant No. 2), as Managing Director of defendant No. 1, instituted a summary suit in the court of Smt Manju Goel, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi (being summary suit No. 550/98), against the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) with interest at the rate of 24%. This was stated to be money alleged to have been paid to the present plaintiff by the defendant No. 2 in pursuance to an alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995. Alleged receipts of payment were also filed by the defendant No. 2. A decree for Rs. 3,00,000 with 18% interest and costs was obtained by the said defendant on 01.09.1999. All documents filed in the said suit including the alleged application for leave to defend purportedly filed on behalf of the present plaintiff are and have been ascertained to have been forgeries and fabrications. The present suit therefore is being filed, inter alia, for declaration that the decree passed in the summary suit no. 550/98 is nullity on ground of fraud and misrepresentation and has been obtained by resort to forged and fabricated documents and perjured evidence.
(b) That the claim in the said summary suit No. 550/98 was false, fabricated and fictitious and it is submitted that that the said decree was procured by defendants No. 1 and 2 in collusion with defendants No. 3 and 4 by practicing fraud upon the court and upon the present plaintiff.
(c) That the plaintiff had business discussions with defendants No. 1 and 2 in or about October, November and December 1995 pertaining to the possible involvement of defendant No. 2 as a catering contractor in the restaurant business of the present plaintiff. In this connection, the present plaintiff alongwith defendant No. 2 visited the present plaintiff's then lawyer, Mr. CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 3 of 57 Gautam Khaitan of M/s. O.P. Khaitan & Co., on three occasions in October 1995 and November 1995. The present plaintiff received a cheque dated 07.12.1995 for Rs. 50,000/- from defendants No. 1 and 2 to cover legal expenses incurred by the present plaintiff from time to time in relation to these negotiations. A draft agreement dated 19.12.1995 was prepared by the then counsel of the plaintiff. This was, however, never executed as discussions came to naught.
(d) That at a later stage, the plaintiff came to know that a summary suit had been instituted against him. Upon gaining such knowledge, the plaintiff requested defendant No. 3, an advocate practicing in Delhi, to make inquiries regarding the said case.
(e) That the plaintiff had no knowledge whatsoever about the proceedings of the said case until long after the decree had been passed. The plaintiff submits that all averments made in the said summary suit concerning the alleged amount of money purportedly taken by the present plaintiff, the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995, and the alleged receipts issued, are false and fabricated. The plaintiff further states that all documents filed in the said summary suit, including the vakalatnama, are forged and fabricated. The acknowledgment cards and summons available on record in the said summary suit are also fabricated, and the alleged signatures of the present plaintiff appearing thereon are forged, as confirmed by a forensic expert.
Some Background Facts
(f) That, in the early nineties the plaintiff, along with Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif, had opened a restaurant in the name of Qutab Oasis at 669/27, Aurobindo Marg, Main Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, on a partnership basis. Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif purported to terminate the said partnership vide a notice dated 06.04.1995 and filed a suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, being suit No.934/95. Thereafter, the present plaintiff, who had invested heavily in the business and had even constructed buildings upon the land with the consent of Sh. Mutakif, started running the restaurant on a CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 4 of 57 sole proprietorship basis. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an order of status quo on 19.04.1995.
(g) That sometime in September 1995 the defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff to ask if he could run the restaurant on a commission basis. The plaintiff explained to the defendant No. 2 that since the said property was under litigation, it would not be possible to accept his offer. The defendant No. 2 said that he would consult his lawyer and see if something could be worked out. The defendant No. 2 came up with a proposal to which the plaintiff said that he would have to consult his lawyers who were handling his case in the High Court. The plaintiff's lawyers at the time in the suit 934/95, pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, were M/s O P Khaitan and Co. The said lawyers prepared a draft agreement on 19.12.1995. In the said draft agreement, it was clearly stated that the plaintiff was maintaining and running a restaurant at 669/27, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Main Mehrauli Road-110030 "under the name and style of Qutab Oasis, which was a partnership firm, (however one of the partners has resigned from the partnership)". The arrangement as mentioned in the draft agreement was that the defendant No. 2 would run the restaurant as catering contractor while the management and control of the restaurant would remain in the hands of the plaintiff. A copy of the draft agreement was handed over to the defendant No. 2 The defendant No. 2 made some modifications in the copy of the draft agreement which were not acceptable to the plaintiff. As such, the agreement was not executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no
2. (This draft agreement as such was never signed and never executed).
(h) Subsequent events reveal that defendants No. 1 and 2 had associated themselves with Sh. Babar Ahmed Mukatif, the present plaintiff's former partner. It appears that they may have been acquainted with Sh. Mukatif even prior to the said transactions and were possibly acting at his behest as his proxies or dummies.
(i) In September 1998, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a summary suit in the court of Smt. Manju Goel, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi against the plaintiff for CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 5 of 57 recovery of Rs 3 lakhs along with 24% interest. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed the said suit on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and the alleged receipts of payment amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs. All the said documents are forged and fabricated. This has also now been established by the report dated 26.06.2001 of the forensic scientist, Dr P Chandra Sekharan.
(j) The then Ld. ADJ in her Judgment dated 01.09.1999 proceeded on the basis that the present plaintiff had not denied "having executed the agreement or having received the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff". No such agreement, or any agreement, was ever signed or executed or even entered into. The fact was that the present plaintiff never saw the alleged application for leave to defend nor was it filed under his instructions. Nor were any of the alleged documents filed by the plaintiff in Suit No.550/98 (the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the present suit) ever received or shown to the present plaintiff. The question of his admitting or not denying these alleged documents never arose. Nor had the present plaintiff received any alleged amount of Rs. 3 lakhs as alleged in the said Suit No. 550/98 by the present defendants No. 1 and 2. The plaintiff received по amount from the defendants except the amount given by cheque and referred to hereinabove.
(k) That the decree dated 01.09.1999 passed in summary suit No. 550/98 has been obtained by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 herein in collusion with defendant No. 3 and 4 herein on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and, as such, the defendants have played fraud upon the Court and upon the plaintiff.
Particulars of Fraud
(l) That the documents filed in the summary suit were never shown to the plaintiff by defendant No. 3 or by defendant No. 4. Copies of the said alleged documents were not supplied to the plaintiff as required under the law of civil procedure and the principles of trust. The defendant No. 3 was asked by the plaintiff merely to inquire about the said summary suit. No Vakalatnama was given to him in this connection. The defendant No. 4 is CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 6 of 57 not known personally to the plaintiff and was apparently engaged by the defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 3 thereupon represented to the plaintiff that the suit was likely to drag on for 10 years and that he need not worry about it. The plaintiff had just recovered from a massive heart attack in July 1998. Thereafter, the defendant no. 3 never disclosed anything about the case to the plaintiff, until December 1999.
(m) Sometime in December 1999, the defendant No. 3 informed the plaintiff that the suit had been decreed against him and that he was preparing an appeal against the decree. Even at this stage, the plaintiff had no information about the engagement of Sh. Υ. Κ. Dullar, the defendant No. 4 who in the said summary suit purportedly filed the alleged application dated 24.05.1999 for leave to defend along with an alleged affidavit bearing the same date which carries the signature of defendant No. 3. In fact, the plaintiff had never seen Sh. Dullar. The vakalatnama found on inspection in the file of Summary Suit No.550/98 is a printed vakalatnama in favour of defendant No.4 (apart from defendant No.3 whose signatures it also bears). The plaintiff gave no such vakalatnama and no such vakalatnama was ever signed by him. The alleged memo of appearance filed on 11.12.1998 by defendants No. 3 and 4 is also a forgery and a fabrication as the plaintiff's signatures on the said document are also forged as are the other applications and affidavits filed by defendants 3 and 4 allegedly on behalf of the present plaintiff. These facts are now confirmed by a leading forensic expert whose opinion was sought by the plaintiff. It is clear that defendants No. 3 and 4 have also acted fraudulently and dishonestly and in collusion with defendants No. 1 and 2 in order to defraud and cheat the plaintiff.
(n) That defendant No. 1 filed the summary suit No. 550/98 for recovery of Rs.
3 lakhs with 24% interest on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and alleged receipts of payment dated 11.11.1995, 15.11.1995, 18.11.1995, 25.11.1995, 28.11.1995, 07.12.1995, 23.12.1995 and 02.01.1996. The plaintiff has not signed any of alleged receipts on behalf of the Qutab Oasis Restaurant and Banquets at all and had no occasion to CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 7 of 57 receive any money as referred to in the bogus and fabricated receipts. The plaintiff has, as stated hereinabove, also obtained the opinion of a leading forensic expert to substantiate the fact that the signatures on the of alleged documents, including the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and the alleged receipts of payment are all forgeries. The alleged receipts are fabrications. The so-called witnesses in the alleged receipts are also not known to the plaintiff.
(o) That the alleged signatures of the plaintiff on the alleged application for leave to defend dated 24.05.1995 and on the alleged affidavit dated 24.05.1995 are also forgeries. It is denied as false and incorrect that the plaintiff ever had any occasion to represent to the defendant No. 2 that he is the co-owner of the land in 669/27, Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The plaintiff has found that defendant No. 3 who had been asked by the plaintiff to look after the said suit, filed an application for leave to defend through defendant No.4, the contents of which were not shown to the plaintiff. The contents of the said application for leave to defend are contrary to the facts known to both the plaintiff and the said defendant No.
3. The said application for leave to defend has not been drafted on any instructions from the plaintiff. The plaintiff was ignorant of the said application till he obtained a copy of part of the record of the said suit file in March 2001.
(p) That it has been falsely indicated and suggested in paragraph (F) of the said application for leave to defend that "the plaintiff was running the said restaurant as per agreement with the defendant". It has also been falsely indicated that partnership in which the present plaintiff had been a partner was subsisting when the plaintiff was negotiating with the defendant No. 2. In fact, no agreement between the present plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 & 2 was ever executed or implemented. It may be reiterated that the partnership was dissolved vide a notice dated 06.04.1995 from the plaintiff's partner, Sh. Babar Ahmad Mutakif. As a result of and as a sequel to the said dissolution, both civil and criminal proceedings were going on CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 8 of 57 between the present plaintiff and the said Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif. All this was known to the defendant No. 3 as he was representing the plaintiff in some of these proceedings.
(q) That, in paragraph (H) of the said application the documents filed in the summary suit were admitted by defendants No. 3 and 4 without ever being shown to the plaintiff. This was clearly done by them to help the present defendants 1 and 2 as it amounted to admitting the claim in the suit. The affidavit in support of the application for leave to defend is also a forgery and a fabrication. It may be noted that in this affidavit, (filed on the same day as the application for leave to defend), the defendant No. 3 has purported to identify the forged signature of the present plaintiff. Besides, the report of the forensic expert also confirms that alleged signatures of the plaintiff on the said application for leave to defend and the said affidavit are forgeries.
(r) That the alleged memo/application for appearance dated 11.12.1998 filed in the summary suit by defendants No. 3 and 4 allegedly on behalf of the plaintiff have also been found to be forged.
(s) Similarly, the summons dated 13.05.1999 bear alleged signatures of the present plaintiff which are and have also been found to be forged. The registered/AD cards found in the file of the summary suit are also forged and fabricated. The signatures upon them are not those of the plaintiff. Nor do they match with one another. They do not bear the stamp of the post office from where they were allegedly served upon the plaintiff. One of them bears no post office stamp at all.
(t) That on 04.04.2000, about 20 persons, including one Sh. Tariq Farooqi, Advocate for defendants 1 and 2, forcibly entered the plaintiff's house claiming to execute a decree of Rs. 3,87,000. They threatened to seize household items and behaved aggressively. The plaintiff, in poor health, called defendant No. 3, who advised him to pay. Acting in collusion, defendants 1 and 2 extracted a post-dated cheque (No. 00414802 dated 10.04.2000) for Rs. 3,86,309.25 drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 9 of 57 Further Particulars of Fraud, Particularising the Role of Each Defendant (u) That defendant No. 1 acting through defendant No. 2, Shri S. K. Chadha, filed a summary suit 550/98 against the plaintiff on the basis of alleged forged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain alleged receipts dated 11.11.1995, 15.11.1995, 18.11.1995, 23.12.1995, 02.01.1996 and 07.12.1995 alleged to have been signed by the present plaintiff. These receipts were forged and fabricated. The present plaintiff could not possibly have given any receipts on the letterhead of Choice Development Co.Pvt. Ltd. as he was not part of the said company. Nor could the present defendants No. 1 and 2 have given the Aurobindo Marg address on the letterhead of choice development Co. Pvt. Ltd.
(v) That the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 is entirely forged and fabricated. A comparison of two agreements are reproduced herein below;
Unexecuted Draft Agreement Forged Fabricated Agreement
dated December 19, 1995 dated November 11, 1995
1. It is stated therein that the The plaintiff is described as a plaintiff (Adnan H. Kidwai) is partner of the firm "The Qutab maintaining and running a Oasis".
restaurant "under the name and style of The Qutab Oasis, which was a partnership firm, (however one of the partners has resigned from the partnership)".
2. The present defendants Nos. 1 & The present defendant No. 1 will 2 were to provide technical manage business of the unit on know-how, experience, economically viable basis.
equipment and staff to manage the restaurant.
3. All the equipment, The present defendant No. 1 M/s assets/amenities used by the Choice Development Co. (P) present defendant No. 2 (S.K. Ltd. shall arrange for the CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 10 of 57 Chadha) shall be under purchase of all assets/amenities ownership and possession of the from its own resources.
said defendant No. 24. The present defendants Nos. 1 & The entire staff will be directly 2 to provide for the entire staff under the exclusive control of and be responsible for their the defendant No. 2 service conditions etc.
5. The present plaintiff The present plaintiff was to (A.H.Kidwai) will be entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- every month payment as per the schedule set or 10% of the net turnover out in clause 5 of the draft whichever is higher.
agreement. If net sales (less sales tax) are less than the amount due to the present plaintiff, the present defendants 1 and 2 would make up the difference.
6. The defendant No. 1 (M/s. The defendant No. 1 (M/s Choice Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd.) is Choice Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd.) is described as a catering described as a management contractor. consultant.
7. The defendant No. 1 (M/s Choice The defendant No.1 (M/s Choice Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd.) to Ltd.) pay Dev. Co. Pvt.) to pay a sum of to the present plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5 lacs towards security Rs. 5 lacs at the time of signing deposits "against the Qutab of the agreement towards Oasis to Mr. A.H.Kidwai, 1 s 2 security deposit. partner of the firm...". It is claimed in the document that a sum of Rs. 1 lac is deposited.
The balance to be paid at the time of signing of the final contract.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 11 of 57 (w) That the defendant No. 3 is a lawyer who had been representing the present plaintiff in criminal cases which were initiated after the plaintiff's partner retired from the partnership M/s Qutab Oasis by giving notice dated 09.04.1995. The present plaintiff had asked defendant No. 3 to enquire about the summary suit No. 550/98 after a summons meant for affixation was found thrown into the plaintiff's house in December 1998. Defendant No. 3 forged the signatures of the plaintiff in the vakalatnama and the applications and affidavit filed by him on 24.05.1999 in the summary suit No. 550/98 and put up a defence in the said suit which was contrary to the facts known to the said defendant. Defendant No. 3 fraudulently admitted the false and fictitious claim made by the defendants No. 1 and 2 in the affidavit dated 24.05.1999 filed by him in summary suit 550/98. The defendant No. 3 did not show the copy of plaint and/or documents filed by the present defendants No. 1 and 2 in their summary suit 550/98 to the present plaintiff nor did he seek admission and denial of the said documents. The defendant No. 3 further connived with the present defendants No. 1 and 2 in their attempt to extract the decretal amount under threat of force.
(x) That defendant No. 4 herein is a lawyer practicing at Delhi. He is not personally known to the plaintiff and appears to have been engaged by defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 4 filed the alleged forged and fabricated leave to defend application dated 24.05.1999 in the said summary suit, the contents thereof are false. For example, in the said application it has been falsely indicated that an agreement dated 11.11.1995 was entered into with the defendants No. 1 & 2. No such agreement exists or was ever entered into. In the said fabricated agreement the plaintiff is falsely described as a partner of the firm "The Qutab Oasis". It has been falsely stated and indicated that the partnership was subsisting when the alleged agreement was signed (whereas fact is that the partnership firm was dissolved in April, 1995). It may be pointed out that when the partnership was terminated vide notice dated 06.04.1995, criminal as well as civil CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 12 of 57 proceedings had been imitated. The defendant No. 3 was representing the present plaintiff in the criminal proceedings pending in the Patiala House Courts. The true facts were therefore known to him (so to defendant No. 4 as well). When even it was not the case of the defendants No. 1 and 2 herein in the summary suit that they ever run the restaurant, the present defendant No. 4 in leave to defend application stated that the defendants No. 1 and 2 herein were running the restaurant.
(y) That the forged and fabricated documents such as the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and the alleged receipts have been made out to seek to convince the court in summary suit that the present plaintiff had signed them. The present plaintiff never signed the said receipts. Nor was there any question of his signing them on behalf of the partnership. Forensic Scientist's Report (z) Ultimately, the plaintiff was advised to seek the opinion of a leading forensic scientist who had specialised in the examination of questioned documents. In due course, the plaintiff was able to contact Dr P. Chandrasekharan, the leading forensic scientist. Prof. Dr P. Chandrasekharan was able to confirm the following facts in his report; (aa) That on the purported AD card, relating to the date of hearing February 1, 1999 the signature purporting to be that of the present plaintiff and bearing the dated 05.12.1998 was clearly forged. This AD card is at page 167 of the file of the summary suit.
(bb) That the summons for hearing on May 28, 1999 had a purported signature of the present plaintiff which was also forged. These summons are at page 179 of the file of the summary suit.
(cc) That the purported AD card in relation to the date of hearing on 28 May 1999 bore an alleged signature of the present plaintiff which was also forged. This purported AD card is at page 181 of the file of the summary suit.
(dd) That the defendant 3 purported to move an application for leave to defend on 24.05.1999. The contents of the application for leave to defend, which CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 13 of 57 was not shown to the plaintiff, are contrary to the facts known to both the plaintiff and the defendant no 3. The signatures upon the said application are not those of the plaintiff as confirmed by the report of the forensic scientist.
(ee) On 01.09.1999, the Ld. Trial Court rejected the application for leave to defend holding, inter alia that "I have heard the counsel for the parties. The documents do show the defendant entered into the agreement dated 11.11.1995 as partner of the Qutab Oasis. The receipts are also executed on behalf of the firm. However, the defendant cannot escape the liability for the amount received by him simply because he was acting as a partner of the firm. All the partners are jointly and severally liable for the dues of the firm..." That the purported agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain alleged receipts dated 11.11.1995, 15.11.1995, 18.11.1995, 23.12.1995, 02.01.1996 and 07.12.1995 were forged and fabricated as confirmed by the report of the forensic scientist.
(ff) Hence, the present suit.
4. Upon service of summons for settlement of issues in the present suit, appearances were entered on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 4. Subsequently, separate written statements were filed--one jointly on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2, and another jointly on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4.
5. In their written statement, the defendants No. 1 and 2 inter alia pleaded as under:-
(a) That the defendant No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, carrying on business as M/s. Choice Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. at G-B, Green Park Extn., New Delhi.
Defendant No. 2, Shri S. K. Chadha, is the Managing Director, fully aware of the case facts and authorized to sign the written statement on behalf of defendant No. 1.
(b) That the plaintiff induced the answering defendant to enter an agreement dated 11.11.1995, granting the premises at Khasra No. 669/28, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Main Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, for running a Japanese CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 14 of 57 restaurant for nine years. The plaintiff received Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash at the time of execution, which he acknowledged in the agreement.
(c) Thereafter, the plaintiff received an additional Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash from the answering defendant between 11.11.1995 and 02.01.1996 through multiple receipts, and a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- dated 7.12.1995 (Canara Bank No. 643786), acknowledged by the plaintiff. In total, the plaintiff received Rs. 3,00,000/- from the answering defendant.
(d) That the plaintiff had assured the answering defendant, at the time of executing the agreement dated 11.11.1995, that he was fully authorized to enter into the agreement on behalf of the firm "M/s The Qutab Oasis."
(e) That after the execution of the said agreement with the plaintiff, when the answering defendant was about to organize the said Japanese Restaurant at "The Qutab Oasis Complex", 669/27, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi one Sh. Baber Ahmed Mutakif the other partner of the firm "M/s. The Qutab Oasis" objected to it.
(f) That the answering defendant received a telegraphic notice dated 24.12.1995 from Sh. Sh. Baber Ahmed Mutakif's Advocate which reads as "Take Notice Suit No. 934/95 Baber Ahmed Mutakif Versus Qutab Oasis and Adnan Hasan Kidwai (the Plaintiff herein) pending Delhi High Court STOP you are warned that High Court issued interim injunction. 'Status Quo' against Defendant (i.e. the Plaintiff herein) STOP Detail Notice follows".
(g) That the Answering defendants received a detailed notice dated 26.12.1995 along with the complete photocopy of the Civil Suit No. 934/95 pending in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court between the plaintiff and Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif titled as "Babar Ahmed Mutakif Vs. The Qutab Oasis & Another". From records of Civil Suit No. 934/95, the answering defendant learned that the property "The Qutab Oasis Complex" at 669/27, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Mehrauli Road, did not belong to the plaintiff but to Sh. M. Ahmed, father of Babar Ahmed Mutakif. The partnership firm "M/s. The Qutab Oasis" had been dissolved before the 11.11.1995 agreement. A civil suit, Babar Ahmed CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 15 of 57 Mutakif vs. The Qutab Oasis & Another (CS No. 934/1995), was pending, with the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directing status quo on 19.04.1995 and restraining the plaintiff from conducting business at the property. The said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was reported as 1996 (II) A.D. (Delhi) 240.
(h) That despite having no legal right, title, or partnership in "The Qutab Oasis Complex," the plaintiff, with malafide intent and by misrepresenting facts, induced the answering defendant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- under the 11.11.1995 agreement, thereby cheating and causing undue loss to the answering defendant.
(i) That the answering defendant issued a notice on 04.01.1996 demanding repayment, to which the plaintiff did not respond. Despite repeated personal visits and assurances, the plaintiff delayed payment. On 23.05.1998, Defendant No. 2 demanded Rs. 3,00,000/-, but the plaintiff refused and threatened him. A further legal notice dated 06.06.1998 was also ignored by the plaintiff.
(j) That finding no alternative, the answering defendants filed Civil Suit No. 550/1998 (M/s. Choice Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri A.H. Kidwai), which was decreed in their favor on 01.09.1999 by Ms. Manju Goel, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed his appearance on 11.12.1998 through defendants No. 3 & 4 herein which was also signed by the plaintiff. After service of summons for judgment, the plaintiff herein also filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) C.P.C. for leave to defend in the said suit through defendants No. 3 & 4 which was also signed by the plaintiff. The said application was also supported by the detailed affidavit of the plaintiff duly attested by the Oath Commissioner. The defendant No.3 had identified the deponent the plaintiff herein.
(k) Besides Civil Suit No. 550/1998, the answering defendants filed a criminal complaint under Sections 420/506 IPC against the plaintiff, which he deliberately concealed. The plaintiff appeared on 16.12.1999 before Shri Jai Prakash Narain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi, and executed a bail bond CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 16 of 57 presented by defendant No. 3, after the decree of 01.09.1999. Even then, the plaintiff did not allege any wrongdoing by defendants No. 3 and 4.
(l) That the same advocates, now accused by the plaintiff of collusion, filed applications for his personal exemption before Shri Jai Prakash Narain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi, on 04.10.1999, 31.07.2000, and 31.07.2000. The first was after the decree, and the latter two after its execution on 04.04.2000. Throughout, the plaintiff never alleged collusion or foul play by defendants No. 3 and 4. The complaint was ultimately dismissed in default on 14.10.2000, and the plaintiff continued to be legally represented by defendants No. 3 and 4 even after execution of the decree.
(m) That on 04.04.2000, during execution of the decree dated 01.09.1999 by Ms. Manju Goel, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, the plaintiff requested the court bailiff to wait, called defendant No. 3, and, in his presence, issued cheque No. 414802 (ANZ Grindlays Bank) dated 10.04.2000 for Rs. 3,86,309.25 in full satisfaction of the decree.
(n) That the judgment and decree of 01.09.1999 was executed on 04.04.2000, yet the plaintiff continued to retain and place trust in defendants No. 3 and 4 long after the decree's passing and execution (the details of these cases are identical to those provided by defendants No. 3 and 4 in their written statement, and are reproduced below, summarizing the key facts from the written statement of defendants no. 3 and 4).
(o) That the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, claims that;
(i) He was served with the summons for Suit No. 550 of 1998.
(ii) The decree in the said suit is void, allegedly obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
(iii) Suit No. 550 of 1998 is false, fictitious, and fabricated.
(iv) The decree was allegedly procured by the answering defendant in collusion with defendants No. 3 and 4.
(v) He denies entering into the agreement dated 11.11.1995, which is the subject matter of Suit No. 550 of 1998.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 17 of 57
(vi) He denies executing 13 receipts acknowledging receipt of money from the answering defendant in cash and by cheque in the presence of witnesses.
(vii) He denies signing the vakalatnama in favor of defendants No. 3 and 4 for defending the said suit.
(viii) He denies signing and filing the appearance application dated 11.12.1998 filed on his behalf by defendants No. 3 and 4.
(ix) He denies signing and filing the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) dated 24.5.1999 on his behalf.
(x) He denies signing, filing, and swearing the affidavit dated 24.5.1999 in support of the application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5).
(p) That the plaintiff denies all the aforesaid documentary evidence and relies instead on a draft, unexecuted, unsigned agreement dated 19.12.1995, which he claims is genuine, though it is false, fabricated, and a sham.
(q) That the plaintiff never raised any objection before the Ld. M.M. when he appeared in person and filed his bail bond, nor did he protest to the court bailiff on 04.04.2000 during the execution of the attachment warrants, disputing that the decree was allegedly obtained by the answering defendants in collusion with defendants No. 3 and 4 or claiming it to be a nullity.
(r) It is noteworthy that the cheque issued on 04.04.2000 to satisfy the decree of Rs. 3,86,309.25 was dated 10.04.2000. The plaintiff had six days to stop the payment and/or to file an objection to execution of the said decree but remained silent and personally acknowledged and accepted the decree before the court bailiff.
(s) That the plaintiff was at liberty to file an appeal against the judgment and decree, but he was fully aware that the transactions with the answering defendants were genuine, leaving no basis to challenge or avoid the decree, which was both just and legally valid.
(t) It appears that the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 and 4 are now colluding with each other to defraud and cheat the answering defendants.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 18 of 57 (u) It is inconceivable that a person who allegedly suffered a decree due to the collusion of his advocates, defendants No. 3 and 4, would neither file a complaint with the Bar Council nor challenge their conduct, yet continue to trust and engage the same advocates for rent cases and other matters. It is even more surprising that the plaintiff, claiming the decree to be a nullity obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, remained silent for over three years without taking any action.
(v) That the plaintiff's claim relies on the alleged handwriting expert report of Dr. P. Chandra Shekharan, which is a procured, false, frivolous, and vexatious report. Proper comparison should have been made with signatures on other court documents and with signatures in Suit No. 550 of 1998, and the report suffers from multiple infirmities.
(w) Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. In their written statement, the defendants No. 3 and 4 inter alia pleaded as under:-
(a) That plaintiff's entire case is that he was wrongfully deprived of Rs.
3,86,309/- by defendants No. 1 and 2, who instituted a false summary suit No. 550/98 against him. It is further alleged that defendants No. 3 and 4, acting as his counsel in the said suit, filed an application for leave to defend without his knowledge, instructions, vakalatnama, or signature, colluded with defendants No. 1 and 2, and fraudulently allowed a decree dated 01.09.1999 to be passed against him.
(b) That plaintiff has concealed from this Court that, in addition to suit No. 550/98, defendants No. 1 and 2 had also instituted Criminal Complaint No. 700/1 of 1998 under Sections 420/506 IPC against the plaintiff before the Court of the ACMM, New Delhi, on the same facts and allegations. It is further submitted that defendant No. 3, Shri Tejvir Singh, Advocate, had been representing the plaintiff as the accused in the said criminal proceedings.
(c) That falsity of the entire case is evident at the very outset from the following sequence of events, which are undisputed;
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 19 of 57
(i) That on 01.09.1999, the impugned decree was passed.
(ii) That on 16.12.1999, the plaintiff, along with defendant No. 3, appeared before the Court of Shri J.P. Narain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi, and applied for bail. On that date, the plaintiff was already aware of the passing of the aforesaid impugned decree.
(iii) That on 04.04.2000, the plaintiff herein admittedly paid Rs. 3,86,309.25p by cheque to the defendants No. 1 & 2 herein, in the presence of defendant No. 3 in satisfaction of the decree dated 01.09.1999.
(iv) That on 31.07.2000, the plaintiff-accused was represented through defendant No. 3 before the Court of Shri J.P. Narain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi, and was granted exemption from personal appearance. The matter was adjourned to 14.10.2000 for pre-charge evidence. On that date, the complainant (defendants No. 1 and 2 herein) also did not appear and sought exemption. Both the complainant (defendants No. 1 and 2 herein) and counsel for the accused (plaintiff herein), i.e., defendant No. 3, informed the Court that the complainants were no longer interested in pursuing the matter, having already received payment pursuant to a court decree. The plaintiff herein raised no allegation at that time of having been defrauded by the defendants.
(d) That, thereafter, on 14.10.2000, the plaintiff herein again appeared before the Court of Shri J.P. Narain, the then Ld. MM, New Delhi, along with defendant No. 3. No one appeared on behalf of the complainants. The plaintiff herein and defendant No. 3 submitted to the Court that full payment had been made. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed in default due to the complainant's non-appearance. Even on that date, the plaintiff did not allege that defendant No. 3 had committed any fraud against him.
(e) Contrary to his claim that he acquired knowledge of the decree "long after it was passed," the plaintiff in fact appeared along with defendant No. 3 on several occasions before different courts. The plaintiff has also suppressed CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 20 of 57 the material fact that he continued to repose faith and confidence in defendant No. 3, engaged him in various matters across multiple courts, and personally appeared with him on numerous dates of hearing. Details are given herein below;
Sr. Dates Case Particulars Courts Remarks
No.
1. 04.10.1999 Criminal Case No. Sh. J. P. Sought
700/01 of 1998 Narain, MM, exemption
Choice Dev. V/s A H New Delhi
Kidwai
2. 07.02.1999 Rent Case Sh. T. R.
A H Kidwai V/s Naval, ARC,
Ripudaman Delhi
3. 21.07.1999 Rent Case Sh. N. K.
A H Kidwai V/s Sharma,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
4. 02.11.1999 Rent Case Sh. N. K.
A H Kidwai V/s Sharma,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
5. 03.11.1999 Rent Case Sh. N. K.
A H Kidwai V/s Sharma,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
6. 16.12.1999 Criminal Case No. Sh. J. P. Bailed
700/01 of 1998 Narain, MM,
Choice Dev. V/s A H New Delhi
Kidwai
7. 31.05.2000 Rent Case Sh. Pradeep
A H Kidwai V/s Chadha,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
8. 31.07.2000 Criminal Case No. Sh. J. P.
700/01 of 1998 Narain, MM,
Choice Dev. V/s A H New Delhi
Kidwai
9. 22.09.2000 Rent Case Sh. Pradeep
A H Kidwai V/s Chadha,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
CS DJ No. 620519/2016
Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development
Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 21 of 57
10. 14.10.2000 Criminal Case No. Sh. J. P. Dismissed
700/01 of 1998 Narain, MM,
Choice Dev. V/s A H New Delhi
Kidwai
11. 29.10.2000 Rent Case Sh. T. R.
A H Kidwai V/s Naval, ARC,
Ripudaman Delhi
12. 28.11.2000 Rent Case Sh. Rajiv
A H Kidwai V/s Mehra,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
13. 19.12.2000 Rent Case Sh. Dilbagh
A H Kidwai V/s Singh, ARC,
Ripudaman Delhi
14. 25.01.2001 Rent Case Sh. O. P.
A H Kidwai V/s Saini, ARC,
Ripudaman Delhi
15. 20.03.2001 Rent Case Sh. V. K.
A H Kidwai V/s Sharma,
Ripudaman ARC, Delhi
(f) That the plaintiff has deliberately altered his signature in the present suit to falsely claim that defendants No. 3 and 4 forged his signatures on various documents, including the vakalatnama, summons, A D Card, Application for leave to defend, affidavit etc. However, he has suppressed that he signed several other documents--such as cheques, money order receipts, bonds, petitions, affidavits, bail bonds, and summons--many filed through defendant No. 3, bearing his genuine signatures and thumb impressions. These undisputed signatures, it is contended, demonstrate that the present suit is false and fraudulent.
(g) That the present suit is not only false and fraudulent, but also malafide and has been filed with the oblique purpose of putting up a false defence in Suit No. 934/95, pending before this Court (a suit filed by Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif against the plaintiff herein).
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 22 of 57
(h) That the defendant No. 3 had acted as the plaintiff's bona fide advocate for about seven years in civil, criminal, and rent matters. In Suit No. 550/98, he was duly engaged, filed appearance and vakalatnama in time, and, with defendant No. 4's assistance, prepared and filed an application for leave to defend supported by affidavit, which the plaintiff read, approved, and signed. Despite contesting the matter, a decree dated 1.9.1999 was passed, of which the plaintiff was informed and advised to file an appeal or revision, but he failed to do so. defendants No. 1 and 2 later executed the decree and recovered the amount on 04.04.2000. Though defendant No. 3 was present at execution, he was unable to prevent it.
(i) That even after 04.04.2000, the plaintiff continued to engage defendant No. 3 for legal work and provided him with vakalatnama and other documents. It appears that around May 2002, after consultations with other legal advisers and finding that the limitation for appeal or revision had expired, the plaintiff decided to challenge the decree of 04.04.2000 by filing the present suit against defendants No. 1 and 2. To lend appearance of legitimacy, the plaintiff also included his own advocates, defendants No. 3 and 4, as parties and made allegations against them.
(j) That the report of the alleged handwriting expert, Dr. P. Chandra Sekharan, is inherently flawed, as no details of the genuine signatures (G1-G14) are provided, and the standard signatures (S1-S20) were knowingly/ consciously signed by the plaintiff, making them unreliable for comparison. A proper comparison should have used admitted signatures from documents executed in the ordinary course of court matters, including rent applications, vakalatnamas, cheques, Pabandi Nama, criminal revision petitions, bail bonds, affidavits, summons, and the Choice Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. case.
(k) Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Plaintiff thereupon filed the replication to the written statements of the defendants No. 1 & 2 and of defendants No. 3 & 4 wherein they denied the case of the defendants and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 23 of 57
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide Order dated 11.02.2008:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit ? OPD
(ii) Is the suit time barred ? OPD
(iii) Whether defendants No. 3 and 4 used any documents or pleadings in Suit No. 550/1998 that were forgeries and/ or used pleadings and/ or documents known by them or any of them to be contrary to facts ? OPP
(iv) Whether any of documents relied upon by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in Suit No. 550/1998 were forged and fabricated ? OPD
(v) Whether the defendants No. 1 & 2 colluded with defendants No. 3 & 4 in obtain the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 ? OPP
(vi) Whether the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 by Additional District Judge was obtained by fraud or mis-representation, as alleged ?
(vii) Relief, if any.
9. In order to prove their case, the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff examined Ms. Ritu Kidwai (wife of deceased plaintiff) as PW1, Ms. Ambereen Gupta (daughter of deceased plaintiff) as PW2, Sh. Adnan Kidwai (son of deceased plaintiff) as PW3, and Dr. Ashwini Chopra as PW4.
10. During the examination-in-chief, PW1 Ms. Ritu Kidwai had deposed in line with the plaint of this suit and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A alongwith the following documents:-
(i) Ex.PW1/1: Certified copy of Suit No. 550/1998
(ii) Ex.PW1/2: Original Agreement dated 19.12.1995
(iii) Ex.PW1/3: Certified copy of proceedings under Section 107 and 150 Cr.P.C. wherein the defendant No. 3 represented the deceased plaintiff
(iv) Ex.PW1/4 (Colly): Documents containing admitted and true signatures of deceased plaintiff
(v) Ex.PW1/5: Certified copy of Letter dated 04.01.1996
11. PW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendants No. 1 to 4. During Cross- examination of PW1 following documents were exhibited/ marked:-
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 24 of 57
(i) Ex.PW1/D1: Certified copy of bail bond dated 16.12.1999 furnished on behalf of deceased plaintiff in criminal complaint case under Sections 420/506 IPC in the court of Sh. J. P. Narain, Ld. MM.
(ii) Ex.PW1/D2: Receipt dated 07.12.1995 regarding receiving of a cheque for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
(iii) Ex.PW1/1/D1: Certified copy of summons sent in Suit No. 550/1998
(iv) Ex.PW1/D1 (Colly): Certified copies of records pertaining to CS (OS) No. 934/1995
(vii) Ex.PW1/DA (Colly): Certified copy of rent deposit applications.
(viii) Ex.PW1/DB: Certified copy of vakalatnama filed on behalf of deceased plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 934/95
12. Ms. Ambereen Gupta had been examined as PW2 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A.
13. Sh. Adnan Kidwai had been examined as PW3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/A.
14. Dr. Ashwini Chopra had been examined as PW4 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/A.
15. PW2 to PW4 were thereafter cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2. No other PW was examined. PE was accordingly closed vide order dated 16.08.2017 and thereafter the suit was posted for DE.
16. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 2 Sh. S. K. Chaddha was examined as D1W1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 alongwith the following documents:-
(i) Ex.DW1/A (Colly): Certified copy of complaint case titled as Choice Development Pvt. Ltd. V/s A. H. Kidwai bearing CC No. 700/1/23.09.1998
(ii) Ex.DW1/B (Colly): Certified copy of execution petition number 16/2000
(iii) Ex.DW1/C (Colly): Certified copy of rent cases titled as A. H. Kidwai V/s Ritudaman
(iv) Ex.DW1/D (Colly): Certified copy of Civil Suit titled as P. K. Sashtri V/s Sh. Adnan Hasan Kidwai CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 25 of 57
17. DW1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. During Cross-examination of DW1 following documents were exhibited/ marked:-
(i) Mark DW1/PA: Forensic Report of Dr. P. Chandra Shekhran
(ii) Ex.DW1/X: Certified copy of certificate of incorporation of Choice Development Company Pvt. Ltd. dated 16.08.1988
(iii) Ex.DW1/Y: Certified copy of incorporation of Choice Development Company Pvt. Ltd. dated 16.06.2000
(iv) Ex.DW1/P: Certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation of defendant No. 1 company
(v) Ex.DW1/R: Extracts of Minutes of meetings dated 02.04.2003
18. No other DW was examined. DE was accordingly closed vide order dated 29.08.2018 and subsequently the suit was listed for final arguments.
19. In order to adjudicate the present suit, this Court heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2. None appeared on behalf of defendants No. 3 and 4 at the time of final arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also filed brief written submissions (on 08.02.2024, 23.08.2024, 03.03.2025 and 30.01.2026).
20. Following Submissions are made by the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff:-
(a) Summary Suit No. 550/1998 was instituted on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain alleged receipts of payment. These documents were/are forged and fabricated. Furthermore, the alleged receipts are inconsistent with the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995. An agreement dated 19.12.1995 (Ex.PW1/2) was yet to be executed between the deceased plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2.
(b) In Paragraph 8 of the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995, it is stated that a token money of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to Sh. Adnan Hasan Kidwai (the deceased plaintiff in the present suit). During the cross-examination of Sh.
S. K. Chadha (defendant No. 2 herein and the plaintiff in Suit No. 550/1998), he was confronted with a question to the effect that: "In the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995, forming part of Ex. PW1/1, you have referred to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as having been 'given' in relation to CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 26 of 57 security. However, in the two alleged receipts of the same date, i.e., 11.11.1995, the amounts mentioned are Rs. 15,000/- each. Can you clarify this?" Defendant No. 2 failed to provide any explanation for this discrepancy.
(c) All the alleged receipts were issued on the letterhead of "Choice Development," bearing at the bottom the address of the restaurant. However, according to the case of the plaintiffs in Suit No. 550/1998 (who are defendants No. 1 and 2 in the present suit), the said restaurant had not yet come into operation [as there was no claim or averment on their part that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- mentioned in the relevant paragraph of the alleged agreement had ever been paid to Adnan Hasan Kidwai (the deceased plaintiff herein)]. This circumstance further renders the alleged receipts highly suspicious.
(d) All the alleged receipts contain the phrase: "I sign this receipt with complete free will on behalf of Qutab-Oasis Restaurant & I sign this receipt without any duress." The inclusion of such a statement is superfluous and unnecessary, particularly when viewed from the perspective of a person merely acknowledging receipt of payment. Ordinarily, a receipt would simply record the amount received and the purpose of payment. The unusual reference to "free will" and "without any duress" in a receipt raises serious doubts about the genuineness and authenticity of the alleged documents/ receipts.
(e) During the cross-examination of Sh. S. K. Chadha (defendant No. 2 herein and the plaintiff in Suit No. 550/1998), he was confronted with the fact that in the letter dated 04.01.1996 sent on his behalf, the claim made was only for Rs. 2,00,000/-. This letter has been exhibited in the present suit as Ex.PW1/5. However, Suit No. 550/1998 filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 herein was for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. When confronted with this discrepancy, defendant No. 2 merely stated in reply: "I do not remember the contents of the said document today."
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 27 of 57
(f) In the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5), it is stated that defendants No. 1 and 2 herein had received a telegram dated 24.12.1995 from Sh. M. Salim, counsel for Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif (the erstwhile partner of the plaintiff herein), informing them about the pendency of Civil Suit No. 934/1995 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the passing of an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. It was on account of this information that defendants No. 1 and 2 issued the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) to the plaintiff herein. However, despite having knowledge of the said status quo order, defendants No. 1 and 2 claim to have advanced a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff vide an alleged receipt dated 02.01.1996. This circumstance is inherently contradictory and raises serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the alleged transaction and receipt.
(g) In Paragraph A of the Affidavit supporting the Application for Leave to Defend in Summary Suit No. 550/1998 (purportedly filed on behalf of the present plaintiff), it is specifically stated that the documents in the said summary suit had not been supplied to him. Despite this, defendants No. 3 and 4 herein, allegedly acting as his counsel in Summary Suit No. 550/1998, admitted those very documents by stating that they pertained to the business of the partnership, without showing them to the present plaintiff. This conduct ultimately resulted in the impugned decree dated 01.09.1999 being passed against the present plaintiff.
(h) This fact is also admitted in the present suit by defendants No. 3 and 4 in paragraph 5(i) of their reply on merits in the written statement, wherein they state: "regarding the documents in the suit, the copy of the same were not supplied." Despite acknowledging that copies of the documents were not supplied, they admitted those documents in Suit No. 550/1998 by stating that they related to the business of the partnership, which ultimately led to the impugned decree dated 01.09.1999 being passed against the present plaintiff.
(i) In Paragraph H of the Affidavit supporting the Application for Leave to Defend in Summary Suit No. 550/1998, defendants No. 3 and 4 sought to CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 28 of 57 raise a defence that "a perusal of the documents" indicated that the dealings between the parties were in the capacity of partners of a partnership firm. However, defendant No. 3 had represented the present plaintiff, Adnan Hasan Kidwai, in civil and criminal proceedings concerning the partnership and was fully aware that the partnership had already been dissolved on 06.04.1995. Therefore, there was no justification for defendants No. 3 and 4 to state in the said affidavit that the alleged transactions--arising from the purported agreement dated 11.11.1995, which was subsequent to the dissolution--were entered into in the capacity of a partner of the firm.
21. Learned Counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2 made the following submissions:-
(a) The plaintiff, despite having no legal right or partnership in "The Qutab Oasis Complex," fraudulently induced the answering defendants to enter into an agreement dated 11.11.1995 for running a Japanese restaurant and obtained a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The property in question belonged to M. Ahmed, the father of Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif (the other partner of the deceased plaintiff). The partnership had already been dissolved, and Civil Suit No. 934/1995 titled "Babar Ahmed Mutakif vs. The Qutab Oasis & Another" was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, wherein a status quo order had been passed on 19.04.1995. These facts came to the knowledge of defendants No. 1 and 2 upon receiving a telegram dated 24.12.1995 and a detailed notice dated 26.12.1995 from the counsel for Sh.
Babar Ahmed Mutakif. Accordingly, the answering defendants addressed a letter dated 04.01.1996 to the plaintiff, which went unanswered. Consequently, the answering defendants filed Civil Suit No. 550/1998 under Order XXXVII C.P.C., which was decreed in their favor on 01.09.1999 by Ms. Manju Goel, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi.
(b) The plaintiff entered appearance in the said suit on 11.12.1998 through defendants No. 3 and 4 herein, and the same was also signed by the plaintiff. After service of summons for judgment, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) CPC seeking leave to defend CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 29 of 57 the suit through defendants No. 3 and 4, which was likewise signed by the plaintiff. The said application was supported by a detailed affidavit of the plaintiff, duly attested by the Oath Commissioner. Defendant No. 3 identified the deponent, i.e., the plaintiff herein.
(c) The plaintiff is relying on an alleged agreement dated 19.12.1995, however the said agreement is an unsigned document.
(d) Apart from Civil Suit No. 550/1998, the answering defendants also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 420/506 IPC against the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has deliberately concealed. The plaintiff appeared on 16.12.1999 before the then Ld. MM, New Delhi, and executed a bail bond presented by defendant No. 3 after the decree dated 01.09.1999. The complaint was ultimately dismissed in default on 14.10.2000, and the plaintiff continued to be represented by defendants No. 3 and 4, yet the plaintiff never alleged any wrongdoing by defendants No. 3 and 4.
(e) On 04.04.2000, during the execution of the decree dated 01.09.1999, the plaintiff requested the court bailiff to wait and called defendant No. 3. In his presence, the plaintiff issued a cheque dated 10.04.2000 for Rs. 3,86,309.25 in full and final satisfaction of the decree. Despite having six days to stop payment or file objections to the execution, the plaintiff remained silent and voluntarily acknowledged and satisfied the decree before the court bailiff.
(f) It is a fact that the plaintiff continued to retain and place trust in defendants No. 3 and 4 long after the decree's passing and execution thereof. It is inconceivable that a person who allegedly suffered a decree due to collusion by his own advocates, defendants No. 3 and 4, would neither file a complaint before the Bar Council nor challenge their conduct, and yet continue to repose trust in and engage the same advocates in other matters, including rent cases.
(g) The plaintiff did not file any appeal against the decree dated 01.09.1999.
(h) The plaintiff's claim relies on the alleged handwriting expert report of Dr. P. Chandra Shekharan. The plaintiff, however, has failed to examine Dr. P. CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 30 of 57 Chandra Shekharan to prove the said expert report. The said report as such can not be looked into by this court.
22. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the entire record. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO. 2(ii) Is the suit time barred ? OPD
23. Onus to prove issue No. 2 was on the defendants.
24. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the judgment and decree dated 01.09.1999 passed in Summary Suit No. 550/1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, are null and void, having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and further seeks their cancellation and setting aside, along with all consequential execution proceedings.
25. As per the record, the plaint was registered as a suit on 12.08.2002.
26. Article 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that a suit for cancellation or setting aside of a decree on the ground of fraud must be filed within a period of three years, and such period of limitation commences from the date on which the party acquires knowledge of the fraud.
27. The present suit, having been filed within three years from the date of the decree, is within the prescribed period of limitation.
28. Hence, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 1(i) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit ? OPD
29. Onus to prove issue No. 2 was on the defendants.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in Vishnu Vardhan alias Vishnu Pradhan V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501, noted/ observed as under;
"1. In Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 1 a three- Judge Bench of this Court emphatically asserted "... stated simply, nothing ... nothing ... and nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything."CS DJ No. 620519/2016
Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 31 of 57
2. At the end of the last century, this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 noticed the growing trend of abuse of the process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts. Fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another: a deception in order to gain by another's loss. The opening paragraph of such decision reads as follows:
"Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal"
observed Chief 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.
This Court then warned that:
5. 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.
Propertygrabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life 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.
3. "Fraud unravels everything" was famously said by Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [1956] 1 Q.B. 702, emphasising that fraud can invalidate judgments, contracts and all transactions. The principle highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal proceedings CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 32 of 57 and transactions. However, it is a cardinal principle of law that fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Order VI Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code may be referred to ordaining that particulars, inter alia, of fraud have to be stated in the pleadings.
4. From the multiple decisions of this Court on 'fraud', what follows is that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, the legislature never intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is unravelled." (Underlined by me)
31. Therefore, the mere fact that the plaintiff did not prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 01.09.1999 passed in Summary Suit No. 550/1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, does not estop the plaintiff from instituting the present suit for its cancellation and setting aside on the ground of fraud.
32. Hence, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 4(iv) Whether any of documents relied upon by defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in Suit No. 550/1998 were forged and fabricated ? OPD
33. The onus to prove Issue No. 4 appears to have been placed on the defendants, whereas it ought to have been placed on the plaintiff. This seems to be a typographical error, particularly in view of the fact that even learned counsel for the plaintiff, in his written submissions while reproducing the issues, has placed the onus of proving Issue No. 4 upon the plaintiff.
34. The plaintiff contends that summary suit No. 550/1998, instituted by defendants No. 1 and 2, was based on forged and fabricated documents, namely an alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain purported receipts of payment.
35. To begin with, I would reproduce paragraph 21 of the plaint of the present suit;
"21. The cause of action for this suit arose on 4.4.2000 when the defendants 1 and 2 with the collusion of defendant no. 3 extracted money from the plaintiff under cover of the said decree, as set out in the plaint. It CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 33 of 57 arose further when in March 2001 when the plaintiff found that the said decree had been obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and by fraud and misrepresentation in which all the present defendants were party. It arose further in July 2001 when the plaintiff obtained the opinion of the forensic expert showing the documents, on the basis of which the summary suit was decreed, to have been forgeries and fabrications. It finally arose when on 23 March 2002 when the plaintiff was able to have the file of suit no. 550/98 examined personally by Dr P. Chandra Sekharan a forensic scientist and pro Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Jodhpur. Prof. Chandra Sekharan also confirmed that the documents and signatures in question, including the alleged signatures of the present plaintiff on the purported summons and purported AD cards in the file of the summary suit were also forged."
36. Neither Dr. P. Chandra Sekharan nor any other forensic expert has been examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
37. DW1 in para 28 of his evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/1 (tendered in his examination-in-chief) deposed to the effect that the deceased-plaintiff has based his claim on the alleged hand writing expert report of Dr. P. Chandra Shekhran which is otherwise a procured report which fact is confirmed from the fact that the said hand writing expert did not appear before this Hon'ble Court to assert that the report which he has prepared is true.
38. DW1 has been cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff on this aspect. Relevant cross-examination of DW1 has been reproduced herein below;
Q. I draw your attention to forensic report of Dr. P. Chandra Shekhran at pages 103 to 123 which is Mark DWI/PA of the court file of the present suit, now CS No. 20519 of 16. Is this the document to which you are referring to in para 28 of your affidavit?
Ans. Yes. Vol. But Mr. P. Chandra Shekhran did not appear in court to confirm its legality.
39. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has been able to establish his case even without relying upon the forensic report of Dr. P. Chandra Shekhran, marked as DWI/PA. In other words, it was CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 34 of 57 contended that although the said forensic report has not been formally proved, the plaintiff has otherwise succeeded in proving his case against the defendants.
40. I shall now consider the issue as to whether any of the documents relied upon by defendants No. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 550/1998, namely the agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain purported receipts of payment, were forged and fabricated.
41. In order to determine whether any of the documents relied upon by defendants No. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 550/1998, namely the agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain purported receipts of payment, were forged and fabricated, and to properly appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary, as a prelude, to briefly set out the facts leading to the institution of Suit No. 550/1998.
42. The case of defendants No. 1 and 2, as deposed by DW-1 in his evidence affidavit Ex. DW1/1, is that the deceased plaintiff falsely represented himself to be a partner of M/s The Qutab Oasis and a co-owner of the premises bearing Khasra No. 669/27, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Main Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, and on that basis induced defendants No. 1 and 2 to enter into an agreement dated 11.11.1995 for running a Japanese restaurant for a period of nine years. It is further stated that the deceased plaintiff assured them that he was duly authorized to execute the said agreement on behalf of the firm.
43. However, when the defendants No. 1 and 2 attempted to proceed with the business, another alleged partner of M/s The Qutab Oasis, Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif, objected and issued a notice dated 26.12.1995, accompanied by documents pertaining to Civil Suit No. 934/95 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled 'Babar Ahmed Mutakif V/s The Qutab Oasis & Another', between himself and the deceased plaintiff. From these, the defendants No. 1 and 2 discovered that the premises bearing Khasra No. 669/27 did not belong to the deceased plaintiff, the partnership had already been dissolved prior to the agreement, and the Hon'ble High Court vide order 19.04.1995 had directed the deceased plaintiff to maintain status quo and restrained the deceased plaintiff from carrying on business at the premises.
44. Thus, as per defendants no. 1 & 2, despite having no legal authority or interest in the property, the deceased plaintiff entered into the agreement with dishonest intent, CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 35 of 57 misrepresented facts, and induced the defendants No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-, thereby committing fraud and causing them wrongful loss.
45. Not a single question was put to DW-1 during his cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff regarding the Civil Suit No. 934/95 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled Babar Ahmed Mutakif V/s The Qutab Oasis & Another.
46. No suggestion was made on behalf of the plaintiff to DW-1 that the deceased plaintiff had never represented himself as a partner of M/s The Qutab Oasis and co- owner of the premises bearing Khasra No. 669/27, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Main Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, or that, on that basis, he had induced defendants No. 1 and 2 to enter into the agreement dated 11.11.1995 for running a Japanese restaurant for nine years, or that the deceased plaintiff had never assured the defendants that he was duly authorized to execute the said agreement on behalf of the firm.
47. Here, I am reproducing relevant cross-examination of PW1 on this aspect;
"...It is correct that there was litigation between my husband and Shri Babar Ahmed. Initially the case was pending at High Court and later on, it was transferred to Tis Hazari Court. I do not remember the CS(OS) No. 934/1995. The dispute was with regard to partnership business. The premises where restaurant was running was of Mr. Babar and the investment was made by my husband. It is correct that Hon'ble High Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the partnership business and the premises...
...It is correct that my husband had signed the vakalatnama authorizing defendant No. 3 to appear on his behalf in CS(OS) No. 934/95. The certified copy of vakalatnama is exhibited as ExPW1/DB..."
48. Against this backdrop, we shall now examine the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff, who contended that the agreement dated 11.11.1995 and certain purported receipts of payment were forged and fabricated.
49. The plaintiff's case is that no agreement, as alleged, was executed on 11.11.1995 between the deceased plaintiff and defendant No. 2. It is contended that defendant No. 2 had approached the deceased plaintiff with a view to opening a Japanese restaurant, and even a draft agreement dated 19.12.1995 (Ex. PW1/2) was CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 36 of 57 prepared. However, as the negotiations did not materialize, no final agreement ever came into effect.
50. To demonstrate that summary suit No. 550/1998 for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- was baseless, the plaintiff relied on a letter/notice dated 04.01.1996, issued on behalf of the present defendants No. 1 and 2 to the deceased plaintiff, in which the defendants claimed only Rs. 2,00,000/- from him. This letter, at behest of the plaintiff, was exhibited in the present suit as Ex. PW1/5.
51. PW1, in paragraph 7 of her evidence affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), deposed to the effect that;
"In addition, the summary suit file No 550/98 shows and contains an alleged letter/notice dated 04.01.96 purportedly issued on behalf of the present Defendants 1 and 2 to my late husband. The said notice does not bear out the claim of Rs. 3.0 lakhs made upon the Plaintiff (the late Adnan Hasan Kidwai) and is in fact contrary to it. It indicates a claim of only Rs.2.0 lakhs as being made upon my late husband. This claim, though also false, belies the claim in the summary suit 550/98 that an amount of Rs. 3.0 lakhs was given to my late husband."
52. DW1 was also cross-examined on this aspect at the instance of the plaintiff. The relevant portion of his cross-examination is as follows;
"Q. I put it you that there is contradiction in the amount claimed by you in the letter Ex. PW1/5 and the legal notice dated 06/06/1998. In the letter Ex. PW1/5 you claimed amount of Rs.2.00 lacs, whereas, the legal notice dated 06/06/1998 you claimed the amount of Rs.3.00 lacs alongwith interest. What do you have to say?
Ans. I do not remember the contents of the said documents today. (This question was asked from DW1 on 01.05.2018, and thereafter further cross-examination was deferred for 24.05.2018.) Q. With reference to cross-examination conducted on 01.05.2018, have you anything further to say with regard to the question lastly asked on the last date of hearing ?
Ans. I do not remember. It may be a clerical mistake."CS DJ No. 620519/2016
Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 37 of 57
53. It appears that the plaintiff seeks to rely upon the letter/notice dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5), issued on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 to the deceased plaintiff, to dispute their claim that a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was payable. Although the plaintiff has also disputed the liability of Rs. 2,00,000/- as reflected in the said letter/notice, the very reliance placed upon it indicates an acceptance, at least to the extent, that such a letter/notice was indeed issued by defendants No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the letter/notice dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) for the limited purpose of examining whether the agreement dated 11.11.1995 and the purported receipts of payment were forged and fabricated.
54. In any case, there is no suggestion to DW1 (on behalf of the plaintiff) that letter/notice dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) is a forged and fabricated document.
55. The relevant contents of letter/notice dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) are reproduced herein below;
"Dear Mr. Kidwai, Please refer our discussion on the best possibility of running Japanese restaurant at the Qutab Oasis Complex, 669/27, Mehrauli Road, Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi-110 030 in presence of your lawyer Mr. Gautam Khaitan at his office in Khaltan House, B-1, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110 024 on 10 NOV. 95 at 1400 hrs. During the discussion we were confirmed verbally by your lawyer Mr. Khaitan that you alongwith your lawyer will ensure total safely, security and gave us full confidence that there would be no problem or untoward incidence created by your second partner Mr. Babar Ahmed Mitukif and others on us to run the restaurant.
Therefore, it was only from the assurance given by you and your lawyer Mr.Gautam Khaitan that there would be no problem at all to run a Japanese restaurant we made an agreement between The Qutab Oasis represented by Mr. A. H. Kidwai, partner of the firm and Choice Development Company Pvt. Ltd. represented by Mr. S. K. Chadha, Managing Director on 11 Nov, 1995.
As we were about to organize ourselves at the Qutab Oasis Complex, 669/27, Mehrauli Road, Aurbindo Harg New Delhi. Our work was objected CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 38 of 57 by your second partner Mr. Babar Ahmed. His advocate Mr. M. Salim sent us a telegram dt. 24 Dec. 95 saying that the said complex has a civil suit 934/95 and High Court has issued Interim Injunction "Status Quo" against defendant and notice follows. Mr. M. Salim Advocate sent us the complete correspondence of the civil suit dt. 26 Dec. 95. Please find enclosed photocopy of the complete documents of the civil suit No. 934/95, total number of pages 70 (seventy) for your reference.
During the course before we received the civil suit documents we have given you Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs only) on your request as advance amount, the receipts of which are held by us after the agreement was signed by us.
You were already informed that we were supposed to cater to elite Japanese clientele and wanted a trouble free area. With the present situation we cannot operate even for a day and we would not like to spoil our reputation and the image of the country.
We therefore request you to consult your lawyer immediately and find out the best solution to you after consulting your lawyer if there is a solution for a trouble free situation in the said complex we will pay you your balance amount and run the restaurant. Please note we will not pay you any money for the disputed period. In case there is no solution you are requested to refund our money amounting Rs. 2 Lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) within seven days after receipt of this letter.
Please acknowledge.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for CHOICE DEVELOPMENT CO. (PVT) LTD.
S. K. CHADHA (MANAGING DIRECTOR) Copy to-
Mr. Gautam Khaitan"
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 39 of 57
56. On a reading of the letter/notice dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5), it emerges that a meeting had taken place on 10.11.1995 between the deceased plaintiff and defendant No. 2 at the office of the plaintiff's advocate regarding the proposed running of a Japanese restaurant at the Qutab Oasis Complex. It further appears that, during the said meeting, an apprehension was expressed that Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif might create obstacles in the smooth functioning of the restaurant. Significantly, Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif has been referred to as the other partner of the deceased plaintiff. It is also indicated that, upon the assurance given by the advocate of the deceased plaintiff that no such difficulty would arise, an agreement came to be executed on 11.11.1995. The letter further reflects that the said agreement dated 11.11.1995 was entered into between M/s The Qutab Oasis, represented by its partner Mr. A. H. Kidwai, and Choice Development Company Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Mr. S. K. Chadha.
57. The said letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex.PW1/5) was issued subsequent to the receipt of a notice dated 26.12.1995, along with documents relating to Civil Suit No. 934/95 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled Babar Ahmed Mutakif v. The Qutab Oasis & Another, sent by Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif, stated to be the other partner. It is of particular significance that a copy of the said letter was also marked to the advocate of the deceased plaintiff, with a request to peruse the same along with the photocopies of the documents pertaining to the aforesaid civil suit.
58. Now, if we examine the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is contended that all the alleged receipts contain the statement: "I sign this receipt with complete free will on behalf of Qutab-Oasis Restaurant & I sign this receipt without any duress," and that the inclusion of such a statement is superfluous and unnecessary (for a person who is merely receiving money), thereby casting doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of the receipts. However, in the considered view of this Court, the inclusion of such a statement appears reasonable in light of the fact, as reflected in the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5), that there was an apprehension that Sh. Babar Ahmed Mutakif--referred to as the other partner of the deceased plaintiff--might create obstacles in the smooth functioning of the restaurant.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 40 of 57
59. The plaintiff's counsel further contended that the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) shows that defendants No. 1 and 2 had received a telegram on 24.12.1995 from Sh. M. Salim, counsel for Sh. Ahmed Mutakif (the deceased plaintiff's erstwhile partner), informing them of the pendency of Civil Suit No. 934/1995 and a status quo order. Despite this knowledge, the defendants allegedly advanced a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the deceased plaintiff on 02.01.1996. Learned counsel submits that this is inherently contradictory and casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the transaction and the alleged receipt.
60. It may be observed that the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) itself states that defendants No. 1 and 2 subsequently received a detailed notice dated 26.12.1995 from the counsel of Sh. Ahmed Mutakif, along with documents relating to Civil Suit No. 934/95, and it was only thereafter that they issued the said letter dated 04.01.1996. The exact date on which defendants No. 1 and 2 received the detailed notice is not clear. It cannot be ruled out that, by the time the notice and documents were received, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- may already have been paid to the deceased plaintiff on 02.01.1996. Furthermore, the contents of the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) do not indicate any intention on the part of defendants No. 1 and 2 to cancel the agreement dated 11.11.1995. On the contrary, it is evident that defendants No. 1 and 2 remained inclined to proceed with running the restaurant, provided a way could be found to do so after consultation with their advocate.
61. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further questioned the authenticity of the receipts, observing that all of them were issued on the letterhead of "Choice Development," which included the restaurant's address at the bottom. However, the restaurant had not yet come into operation, as there was no claim or averment by defendants No. 1 and 2 that the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- mentioned in the relevant paragraph of the alleged agreement had ever been paid to the deceased plaintiff.
62. What constitutes a false document is not the writing of any number of words, which in themselves are incorrect, but the affixing of the seal or signature of some person on the document, knowing that the seal or signature is not that of actual person and the person signing it does not have the authority to affix it. Incorporation or inclusion of a false statement in a document would not ipso facto make the document CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 41 of 57 false, for a document to be false, it has to tell a lie about itself (being signed or sealed with the name or seal of a person who did not in fact sign or seal it). The mere fact that the letterhead bears the address of a business yet to commence operations does not, in itself, render the receipts forged or fabricated. In the considered opinion of this court, such circumstance alone are insufficient to challenge the genuineness of the receipts.
63. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the documents relied upon by defendants No. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 550/1998, namely the agreement dated 11.11.1995 and the purported receipts of payment, were forged or fabricated.
64. Hence, Issue No. 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUE NO. 3(iii) Whether defendants No. 3 and 4 used any documents or pleadings in Suit No. 550/1998 that were forgeries and/ or used pleadings and/ or documents known by them or any of them to be contrary to facts ? OPP
65. The case of the plaintiff against defendants No. 3 and 4 is that defendant No. 3 was merely requested to make enquiries regarding Summary Suit No. 550/1998 and was not authorized through any vakalatnama to represent him in the said proceedings. It is further stated that defendant No. 4 was not personally known to the plaintiff and appears to have been engaged by defendant No. 3. The plaintiff alleges that the memo of appearance dated 11.12.1998, purportedly filed by defendants No. 3 and 4, is forged and fabricated, and that his signatures appearing thereon, as well as on other applications and affidavits filed on his behalf, are also forged.
66. The plaintiff further contends that the defendant No. 3 had previously represented him in civil and criminal proceedings relating to the partnership and was fully aware that the partnership had already been dissolved on 06.04.1995. Therefore, there was no justification for defendants No. 3 and 4 to assert (or, to take a defence) in the affidavit supporting the application for leave to defend in the said summary suit that the alleged transactions arising from the purported agreement dated 11.11.1995-- executed after the dissolution--were entered into in the capacity of a partner of the firm.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 42 of 57
67. It may be reiterated that the plaintiff has not examined Dr. P. Chandra Sekharan or any other forensic expert to prove the alleged forgery. It may also be noted that the plaintiff himself could not be examined, having expired prior to his evidence being recorded. In these circumstances, the legal representatives of the plaintiff are primarily relying upon their own testimonies, particularly that of the wife of the deceased plaintiff, Ms. Ritu Kidwai, who has been examined as PW-1.
68. PW1 was extensively cross-examined on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 as well as defendants No. 3 and 4 on several dates. The relevant portions of her cross- examination are reproduced hereinbelow;
"...Q. Are you aware that defendant no. 1 & 2 had initiated a recovery proceedings against your deceased husband ?
A. Yes. We came to know about the said proceedings only after decree had been passed in the said proceedings.
Q. Are you aware whether your husband had received the notices/summons of the said proceedings ?
A. According to my knowledge my husband had not received any notices/summons of the said proceedings.
Q. Is it correct that your husband had received the summons of the suit no. 550/1998 and had instructed the defendant no. 3 to defend the case on his behalf ?
A. My husband had received one summons which had been thrown under the door of our house in December, 1998 and he came to know of the proceedings only thereafter and he asked his lawyer, the defendant no. 3 to look into the matter and my husband relied on the defendant no. 3 as he was not keeping good health.
Q. Since when your husband had been knowing Mr. Tejveer Singh, the defendant no. 3 ?
A. I do not know the exact period but Mr. Tejveer Singh, the defendant no. 3 was looking after the various cases of my husband in the past many years. Q. Did the defendant no. 3 inform your husband about a decree having been passed in the said case ?CS DJ No. 620519/2016
Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 43 of 57 A. My husband had been told about the decree in the month of September, 1999 after the decree had been pronounced.
Q. Is it correct that your husband was aware about the court procedures? A. Yes.
Q. Did your husband take any steps after he became aware of the decree passed on 01.09.19997 ?
A. My husband left it to Mr. Tejveer Singh, the defendant no. 3 as my husband was not in the position to go to the court very often and my husband had been assured by the defendant no. 3 that he need not worry in the matter as such cases take many years to get settled. Q. Is it correct that your husband had knowledge about the said suit after receipt of the summons in suit no. 550/1998 ?
A. As stated above only one summon had been seen by my husband in December, 1998 as the same had been thrown under the door of the house and thereafter he had asked the defendant no 3 to look into the matter. Q. Had your husband given any authority letter or vakalatnama to defendant no. 3 ?
A. No. Q. Were you present when your husband had asked the defendant no. 3 to look into the matter?
A. No. Q. What steps had your husband taken after he became aware of the decree having been passed in the matter?
A. I have already answered the same earlier.
Q. What steps since you have stated that you were aware about the pendencies of the case filed by defendant No. 1 & 2 against deceased husband of plaintiff. What steps your husband to defend the case ? A. My husband did not know about the this case. He came to know that decree has been passed much later.
I state that no summons of the case was issued to my husband. There is one summon which was found thrown under the door after September, 1998, that's when he asked his lawyer defendant No. 3 to look into the CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 44 of 57 matter. My husband was not keeping good health, he told Tejveer Singh defendant No.3 to look into the matter and was informed that there is nothing to be concerned about that case will take about 10 years. Q. What you have stated herein above suggest that your husband aware of the proceedings pending against him before the trial court since you have stated above that summons were received?
A. He received only one summon.
Q. After the decree was executed against your deceased husband in terms of the orders of the trial court what efforts your husband took to set aside the decree ?
A. My husband asked Tejveer Singh to look into the matter and was informed by him that he trying to appeal against the matter and it will about 10 years and there was nothing to worry about. Court Question: Did your husband signed the memorandum of which ? A. No document was given to him to be singed.
Q. For how long your husband awaited for appeal to be prepared ? A. We awaited till the execution proceedings resulted in attachment order.
We paid the cheque of decretable amount on receipt of order of attachment by way of post dated cheque. I was present in the house when the attachment order came. The attachment order for execution came to our house probably around 04.04.2000. Tejveer Singh was called to our house by my husband on the day of attachment warrant came for execution and Tejveer Singh told us nothing can be done and we will have to pay. My husband did not present himself before the court after 04.04.2000 before the cheque was presented around 10.04.2000 for encashment. The cheque was duly encashed. It is correct that it is my case that decree has been obtained is fraud..."
69. From the cross-examination of PW1, the following points emerge;
(a) Defendant No. 3, Sh. Tejvir Singh, Advocate, was known to the deceased plaintiff, having handled his various legal matters over several years.
(b) The deceased plaintiff received the summons in Summary Suit No. 550/1998 in December 1998, which had been slipped under the door.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 45 of 57
(c) The deceased plaintiff asked the defendant No. 3 to look into the matter (without signing Vakalatnama in his favour).
(d) Defendant No. 3 informed about passing of decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 to the deceased plaintiff in the month of September (after the decree has been passed).
(e) After the decree dated 01.09.1999 was passed, the deceased plaintiff left it to defendant No. 3 to decide on the appropriate course of action. Defendant No. 3 assured the plaintiff not to worry, stating that cases of this nature typically took around ten years to be settled/ decided.
(f) For the execution of the decree dated 01.09.1999, the bailiff arrived at the deceased plaintiff's residence on 04.04.2000 with attachment order. The deceased plaintiff then called defendant No. 3, and acting on his presence and advice, handed over a post-dated cheque for 10.04.2000, which was subsequently encashed.
(g) After the execution of the decree, the deceased plaintiff requested defendant No. 3 to look into the matter, and defendant No. 3 informed him that he was attempting to file an appeal.
70. The foregoing facts concerning the conduct of the deceased plaintiff are consistent with the supposition that defendant No. 3 appeared for and defended the deceased plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 550/1998, and even thereafter, during the execution of the decree dated 01.09.1999, with his knowledge and consent. It further indicates that defendant No. 3 continuously kept the deceased plaintiff informed about the progress of the case.
71. Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 submitted that the plaintiff continued to retain and place trust in defendants No. 3 and 4 even after the passing and execution of the decree. It was submitted that, in addition to Summary Suit No. 550/1998, the answering defendants had also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereafter, appeared on 16.12.1999 before the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, and executed a bail bond, which was presented by defendant No. 3, following the decree dated 01.09.1999.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 46 of 57
72. PW1 during her cross-examination (conducted on 14.02.2014) deposed to the effect that [I]t is correct that decree was passed in the suit on 01.09.1999 and I had appeared in the court of Sh. J. P. Narain, Ld. MM on 16.12.1999 and had stood as surety for my husband.
73. Here, by referring to certain portions of the cross-examination of PW1--on the aspect of her standing as surety in the criminal complaint case on 16.12.1999--I also wish to highlight why her testimony claiming that various documents filed by defendants No. 3 and 4 in Summary Suit No. 550/1998 were forged (as not having signatures of deceased plaintiff) cannot be accepted. The relevant portions of her cross-examination are reproduced hereinbelow;
"...It is correct that I am also known as Mehar Fatima Kidwai. Q. Are you aware that defendant no. 1 & 2 had initiated criminal proceedings against your deceased husband ?
A. Yes. I am aware.
Q. Have you ever accompanied your husband when he had gone for attending his aforementioned criminal proceedings ? A. Yes I had accompanied my husband on many occasions. I had given surety for my husband.
Q. Kindly see the certified copy of the bail bond dated 16.12.1999 and confirm whether your signatures appear at points A, B and C ? (The said documents have been marked today as Ex. PW1/D1) A. The signatures at points A, B and C on document Ex. PW1/D1 are not mine.
Q. Can you confirm as to who had put the thumb impressions on Ex. PW1/D1 ? (Objection is taken by learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the same is irrelevant) A. I cannot answer this question as I am not an expert on thumb impression. Q. Can you identify the signatures of your deceased husband on Ex. PW1/D1?
A. I can identify the signatures of my deceased husband only to the certain extent and in my opinion my husband's signatures do not appear on Ex. PW1/D1..."CS DJ No. 620519/2016
Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 47 of 57
74. PW1, while admitting that she appeared along with her husband on 16.12.1999 before Sh. J. P. Narain, Ld. MM, and stood as surety for him in the said matter, denied her own signature as well as that of her husband on the bail bond (Ex. PW1/D1) furnished in the case. This clearly indicates that PW-1 has not been truthful on this aspect, and, accordingly, her testimony regarding the alleged forgery of certain documents filed by defendants No. 3 and 4 in Summary Suit No. 550/1998--including the claim that they lacked the signature of the deceased plaintiff--cannot be relied upon.
75. In view of the finding already returned that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the documents filed by defendants No. 3 and 4 in Summary Suit No. 550/1998 did not bear his signatures, nothing further survives for consideration as to whether defendants No. 3 and 4 pleaded facts detrimental to the plaintiff which were contrary to their own knowledge, particularly when the said documents are found to have been filed with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.
76. Accordingly, this Court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to establish that defendants No. 3 and 4 relied upon any forged documents or pleadings in Suit No. 550/1998, or that they used any pleadings or documents which were to their knowledge contrary to the true facts.
77. Before concluding the discussion on this issue, it is important to highlight the relevant portions of PW1's cross-examination, where she deposed that she did not know whether any complaint had been made to the Bar Council, Delhi, regarding the lawyer's conduct, and admitted that she herself had not filed any complaint with the police or the Bar Council prior to instituting the present suit.
78. Hence, Issue No. 3 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
ISSUES NO. 5 AND 6
(v) Whether the defendants No. 1 & 2 colluded with defendants No. 3 & 4 in obtain the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 ? OPP
(vi) Whether the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 by Additional District Judge was obtained by fraud or mis-representation, as alleged ?
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 48 of 57
79. The plaintiff's allegation of collusion between defendants No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 3 and 4 mainly stems from the claim that defendants No. 3 and 4 admitted certain documents filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in Summary Suit No. 550/1998--allegedly forged--which were never provided to the plaintiff.
80. The plaintiff contends that in paragraph A of the affidavit supporting the application for leave to defend in the said summary suit, it was specifically stated that the documents in that suit had not been supplied to him; however, despite this, defendants No. 3 and 4, while acting as his counsel, admitted those very documents by stating that they pertained to the business of the partnership, without showing them to him. It is also alleged that in paragraph H of the said affidavit, defendants No. 3 and 4 took a defence that a perusal of the documents indicated that the dealings between the parties were in the capacity of partners of a partnership firm. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 3 had previously represented him in civil and criminal proceedings relating to the partnership and was fully aware that the partnership had already been dissolved on 06.04.1995. Therefore, there was no justification for defendants No. 3 and 4 to assert in the affidavit that the alleged transactions arising from the purported agreement dated 11.11.1995--executed after the dissolution--were entered into in the capacity of a partner of the firm.
81. The following points merit consideration to examine these issues;
(a) This Court has already held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the documents relied upon by defendants No. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 550/1998-- namely, the agreement dated 11.11.1995 and the purported receipts of payment--were forged or fabricated.
(b) This Court has further held that the plaintiff has not established that defendants No. 3 and 4 relied on any forged documents or pleadings in Suit No. 550/1998.
(c) It has also been held that defendants No. 3 and 4 appeared for and defended the deceased plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 550/1998, and even thereafter, during the execution of the decree dated 01.09.1999, with his knowledge and consent. Consequently, there was no occasion for defendants No. 3 and CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 49 of 57 4 to use any pleadings or documents that were contrary to the true facts to their knowledge.
(d) That not a single question was put to DW-1 during his cross-examination on behalf of the plaintiff regarding the Civil Suit No. 934/95 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, titled Babar Ahmed Mutakif V/s The Qutab Oasis & Another. No suggestion was made on behalf of the plaintiff to DW-1 that the deceased plaintiff had never represented himself as a partner of M/s The Qutab Oasis and co-owner of the premises bearing Khasra No. 669/27, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Main Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, or that, on that basis, he had induced defendants No. 1 and 2 to enter into the agreement dated 11.11.1995 for running a Japanese restaurant for nine years, or that the deceased plaintiff had never assured the defendants that he was duly authorized to execute the said agreement on behalf of the firm.
(e) No suggestion was given to DW1 on behalf of the plaintiff that letter/notice dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) is a forged and fabricated document.
82. In these circumstances (as noted in para 81 supra), no inference can be drawn in favour of the plaintiff regarding the alleged collusion between defendants No. 1 and 2 and defendants No. 3 and 4. This remains the case even if it is assumed that defendants No. 3 and 4 admitted documents not supplied to the plaintiff, or stated in the affidavit that the alleged transactions arising from the purported agreement dated 11.11.1995 were carried out in the capacity of a partner of the firm, since it is on record that defendants No. 3 and 4 appeared for and defended the deceased plaintiff in Summary Suit No. 550/1998, and even thereafter during the execution of the decree dated 01.09.1999, with his knowledge and consent, and no suggestion was put to DW-1 (in the present suit) that the deceased plaintiff had never represented himself as a partner of M/s The Qutab Oasis.
83. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following two circumstances to argue that the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998, passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation;
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 50 of 57
(a) In paragraph 8 of the alleged agreement dated 11.11.1995 mentions a token payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the deceased plaintiff. However, during cross- examination, defendant No. 2, Sh. S. K. Chadha, could not explain why the two purported receipts of the same date showed only Rs. 15,000/- each, leaving the discrepancy unexplained.
(b) During cross-examination, defendant No. 2, Sh. S. K. Chadha, was confronted with a discrepancy: the letter dated 04.01.1996 (Ex. PW1/5) claimed only Rs. 2,00,000/-, whereas Suit No. 550/1998 sought Rs. 3,00,000/- plus 24% interest. He failed to explain the difference, stating he did not remember the contents of the letter.
84. In order to deal with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff, I deem it appropriate to refer, in extenso, to the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Papavinasom Subrahmoniam V/s Daivani Nagaramma & Others, 1962 SCC OnLine Ker 117, as under;
14. The nature of 'fraud' which may entitle a party to the suit to nullify the judgment therein by another suit has been considered in a long line of decisions; and it is now well settled that fraud to be a ground for vacating a judgment must be extrinsic or collateral to the adjudications involved in the judgment and not been, or deemed to have been, dealt with by the court in the impugned judgment.
22. In Mahomed Golab v. Mahomed Suliman, ILR 21 Cal 612, Sir Comer Petheram C.J. followed, (1879) 10 Ch D 327 had observed:
"Where a decree has been obtained by a fraud practised upon the other side by which he was prevented from placing his case before the tribunal which was called upon to adjudicate upon it in the way most to his advantage, the decree is not binding upon him, and the decree may be set aside by a Court of Justice in a separate suit and not only by an application made in the suit in which the decree was passed to the court by which it was passed, but I am not aware that it has ever been suggested in any decided case, and in my opinion it is not the law, that because a person against whom a decree has CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 51 of 57 been passed alleges that it is wrong and that it was obtained by perjury committed, by or at the instance of, the other party, which is of course fraud of the worst kind, that he can obtain a rehearing of the questions in dispute in a fresh action by merely changing the form in which he places it before the Court, and alleging in his plaint that the first decree was obtained by the perjury of the person in whose favour it was given. To so hold would be to allow defeated litigants to avoid the operation, not only of the law which regulates appeals, but that of that which relates to res judicata as well."
23. This decision has been followed in Abdul Haque v. Abdul Hafeez, 14 Cal WN 695 : 16 Cal WN 1002, Kunjav behari v. Krishnadhone, AIR 1940 Cal 489 and Durgapatt, Banerjee v. Taharulla, AIR 1941 Cal 215.
24. In AIR 1941 Cal 215, Edgley J. reviewed the precedents on the matter and concluded that a plaintiff is not entitled to have a decree against him set aside on the ground that it had been fraudulently obtained merely by reason of the fact that the claim in the original suit was false, or without any cause of action, or merely because the decree was obtained by false representation or suppression of facts provided the person so applying for a reversal of the decree in the original suit was not prevented by the fraud of the decree-holder from placing his case before the court.
28. Basdevanand Gir v. Shantanand, AIR 1942 All 302, also expressed the same view:
"The rule that a title once settled by a decision should not be questioned again between the same parties is intended not only to prevent a new decision but also to prevent a new investigation so that the same person cannot be harassed again and again in various proceedings upon the same question. A decree cannot be set aside merely because it was obtained by perjured evidence because, if the contrary were held, it would be necessary to hold new investigation again and again into the same question. It would be most unsafe to hold that a decree can be set aside on the ground that the defendant did not raise a plea which was open to him, because he did not know CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 52 of 57 all the necessary facts, or on the ground that the plea set up was false to the knowledge of the plaintiff."
29. In ILR 38 Mad 203 : (AIR 1916 Mad 364), Benson J. and Sundara Ayyar J. observed:
"The respondent contends that, on the finding of the lower courts, the evidence given on oath by the defendant at the trial of Original Suit No. 16 was perjured testimony and a decree obtained by perjured evidence may be set aside on the ground of fraud. It is indisputable that a decree may be vacated on the ground that it was obtained by the successful party by fraud. The question is what would amount to fraud which would entitle an unsuccessful litigant to get the decree vacated. He cannot, it is clear, be allowed to get round the rule of res judicata and to prove that the Judgment given by the court was wrong because it came to a wrong conclusion on the evidence before it. It follows from this that the Court's conclusions both on the construction to be put on the evidence placed before it and on the inference to be drawn from such evidence as well as on the trustworthiness of the evidence should be regarded as final. If the Court acts erroneously informing its judgment on any of those matters, the proper remedy is to invoke the help of the appellate tribunal where an appeal is allowed by law? Another mode of rectifying an erroneous judgment is to apply for review of judgment. The unsuccessful party has, in such an application, an opportunity to adduce any evidence which he failed to adduce at the hearing and which he could not, with all proper diligence, have then adduced. It cannot be doubted that, in such cases, he cannot institute a fresh suit to get the judgment vacated. The allegation of fraud for vacating a judgment therefore, must be extraneous to everything which has been adjudicated on by the court and not any fraud which has already been dealt with by the court.......Now the judgment of a court includes the decision of the questions whether the testimony of any witness is true or false CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 53 of 57 and whether a document produced in evidence is genuine or not. These questions are not extraneous or collateral to the judgment, but are steps which lead to the final adjudication of the court, quite as much as its opinion as to the effect of the evidence adduced and the inference to be drawn from it. The parties in a suit are entitled to convince the court that the evidence given by their respective witnesses is true and prove the contentions they urge. It stands to reason, therefore, that the unsuccessful party cannot be allowed to resort to a fresh suit in order to make a fresh attempt to show that the evidence which was insisted on by his opponent as true, was in reality, false and to characterise such insistence as fraud in obtaining the judgment. Nor can he be permitted to do so by adducing fresh evidence for the purpose, for it was his duty to place all his evidence before the court at the former trial............ "It is true that parties ought not to let in false evidence, and that it is highly improper and immoral to do so, but it is the function of the court to decide whether the evidence is true or false. If the adducing of false evidence can be spoken as a fraud, then the court, in deciding the case, must be taken to have adjudged whether such fraud has been committed or not, and what it has once adjudged, it cannot be called upon to decide again. The test to be applied is, is the fraud complained of not something that was included in what has been already adjudged by the Court, but extraneous to it? If, for instance, a party is prevented by his opponent from conducting his case properly by tricks or misrepresentation, that would amount to fraud. There may also be fraud upon the Court, if, in a proceeding in which a party is entitled to get an order without notice to the other side, he procures it by suppressing facts, which the law makes his duty to disclose to the court. But where two parties fight at arm's length, it is the duty of each to question the allegations made by the other and to adduce all available evidence regarding the truth or CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 54 of 57 falsehood of it. Neither of them can neglect his duty and afterwards claim to show that the allegation of his opponent was false".
35. ...Fraud affecting the validity of a decree must be actual positive fraud, a meditated and intentional contrivance to keep the opposite party in ignorance of the real facts of the case. The plaintiff having entered appearance through counsel cannot be held to have been the victim of any such positive fraud..."
(Underlined by me)
85. I would also like to refer to a passage from the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bal Chanchal v. Ganpatram Jadavji & Others; 1964 SCC OnLine Guj 34, which reads as under;
"7. ...In our Judgment, the mere act of perjury or tendering of forged documents in evidence by one of the parties to a proceeding does not amount to a fraud on Court and it does not, therefore, render the decree obtained in such a litigation a nullity. It is not any sort of fraud resorted to by a party to a suit that renders a decree obtained therein, a nullity to render a decree or a legal decision a nullity, it must amount to some sort of fraud on Court and not merely on the opposite party. There must be something further than the mere act of giving; perjured evidence or producing forged documents to make a decree or award a nullity. It is true that it is highly improper and even immoral to put in forged evidence or give false evidence. But it is the function of the very Court before which it is led, to decide whether the evidence was true or false. If the leading of false evidence can be spoken of as a fraud, then the Court to deciding the case should be taken to have also decided the point whether such fraud has been committed or not. The Court then cannot be called upon to decide again. The test, in our opinion, would be to see whether the fraud complained of is something that was included in what has already been decided or is deemed to have been decided in the eye of law by the Court, or it is something which is extra??? to it. In a litigation both parties are expected to be, vigilant and be prepared to show to the Court that the evidence led by the other side is false and should not be relied upon. Neither can neglect this CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 55 of 57 duty and then subsequently start another litigation to show that the evidence led by the other party was false and make it out to be a fraud. It does not then amount to a fraud because the Court is taken to have decided such evidence to be truss and not false. But it would be different if leading of such false evidence has the effect of preventing the other side from putting his case before the Court, for then it amounts to fraud on Court because the Court is prevented thereby from knowing the case of the other side while deciding the matter. A decree obtained in such a case would be a nullity."
(Underlined by me)
86. If the two circumstances relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff (as noted in para 83 supra) are examined in the light of the law laid down in Papavinasom (supra) and Bal Chanchal (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, cannot be held to have been obtained by fraud by defendants No. 1 and 2. This is because, in the absence of the plaintiff establishing that he was prevented by the opposite party (defendants No. 1 and 2) from placing his case before the Court, it was for the Court seized of the matter to assess the evidence and determine its (of both the circumstances) truth or otherwise, and such determination must be taken to have been conclusively made by the said Court (subject to correction in appeal or review).
87. From the above discussion this court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendants No. 1 & 2 colluded with defendants No. 3 & 4 in obtain the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 or that the decree dated 01.09.1999 in Suit No. 550/1998 by Additional District Judge was obtained by fraud or mis- representation.
88. Hence, Issues No. 5 and 6 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.
RELIEF
89. In view of the aforesaid findings on the issues framed in the suit on 11.02.2008, the present suit is hereby dismissed.
90. There shall be no order as to costs.
CS DJ No. 620519/2016Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 56 of 57
91. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open court on this 24th day of March, 2026 This Judgment consists of Fifty Seven signed pages).
(Abhishek Srivastava) District Judge-05, Central, THC, Delhi Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA SRIVASTAVA Date:
2026.03.24 16:15:48 +0530 CS DJ No. 620519/2016 Adnan Hasan Kidwai Vs. M/s Choice Development Judgment dated 24.03.2026 Page No. 57 of 57