Court declares decree null & void

Chandigarh, April 23

Fourteen years after a decree was passed in favour of Ashok Kumar, a Dadu Majra resident, TPS Randhawa, Civil Judge, Senior Division, has declared it null and void after holding that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts.

Randhawa delivered the judgment in a civil suit filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) through counsel Vikas Jain. In the civil suit, the CHB had sought a declaration to the effect that the decree dated December 1, 2008, passed by the then Civil Judge (JD) be declared as null and void as it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

In the suit, the CHB said dwelling unit House No. 2822, Dadu Majra, Chandigarh, belonged to it as no allotment letter was ever issued in favour of Ashok Kumar or any other person till date and he was occupying the house illegally.

The CHB alleged that Ashok had filed a civil suit, seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions, directing the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, not to dispossess him from the property and also directed to issue him allotment letter of the property.

The CHB said while filing the civil suit, Ashok falsely claimed that the property was allotted to him by the Estate Office in year 1985 under the Rehabilitation Plan in lieu of a jhuggi at Attawa village, Chandigarh, which was demolished by the Estate Office.

He claimed that after the demolition of the jhuggi, the Estate Office allotted him an alternative site in Dadu Majra Colony i.e. suit property. The civil suit was decreed vide judgment dated December 1, 2008, mentioning that Ashok was in the possession of the suit property since long and it was given by the department against slip, issued by officers of the Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh. Therefore, no allotment letter was issued to him.

Further, it was also observed by the court that no proof was produced by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, that why the allotment letter could not be issued to him. Thus, the Estate Officer was restrained from dispossessing him from the property and direction was issued to the Estate Office to issue an allotment letter to him.

The SDO, Electricity, Chandigarh, was also directed to provide electricity connection to him. The CHB said the fraud came to light when Ashok filed execution/contempt against the decree and a letter it received from the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, wherein it was informed that Ashok had obtained the decree by way of fraud and without impleading the CHB as a party and no allotment letter was issued by the Board to him.

Vikas Jain argued that the decree had been obtained by Ashok Kumar by playing fraud upon the court and by wrongly impleading Estate Officer, Chandigarh, as the party because the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, had nothing to do with the suit property as it belonged to the CHB.

On the other hand, the counsel for Ashok Kumar denied all charges and said there was no evidence of fraud on the file.

After hearing the arguments, TPS Randhawa, CJ senior division, said no doubt, judgment and decree had become final, but since the same had been obtained fraudulently by defendant number 1 (Ashok Kumar), it was liable to be set aside.