Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. What is the effect of that order will be the main consideration, when we consider C.M.P.No. 11268 of 1997. The effect of the order is that the respondent has come to court with a fraudulent document so as to deprive another person of her property. Even though the injunction application was dismissed, if he continues in possession on the basis of the fraudulent document, is not the court impliedly holding him to continue in possession? The court in such cases will have to be little more active, since such person should not get the benefit out of their own fraud.

6. The argument of the learned Counsel for the counter petitioner is that the petitioner can only file a suit for recovery of possession and she cannot take the law into her own hands. I do not think that the court will be helpless in such cases. The person coming to the court with false case with the aid of false and fraudulent document 'is not' entitled to any equity nor is he entitled to get any orders in his favour. The law is settled that such cases should be thrown out even at the threshold. The court has also a duty to see that as far as possible, litigation is avoided and multiplicity of proceedings is avoided. When the court has such a power to grant relief, it should not close its eyes on technicalities.

8. Both the courts have on materials found that the plaintiff has come with a fraudulent document as if executed by the petitioner. He occupied the building on that basis and he had the courage enough to move the trial court to get an order of injunction. Though it is vacated, he continues to be in possession. Under our system, possession has great weight and if that is allowed to stand, on the basis of a fraudulent document, the loss or the injustice can never be compensated. In such cases, the court does not think that the petitioner must be asked to file a suit and get possession as contended by the counsel for the respondent. That will amount to granting a premium on the fraud.