Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 884 - Exceptions To Doctrine Of Merger- Writ Jurisdiction - Fraud

Legal Maxims and Doctrines - Doctrine of Merger - When an appeal is limited to a specific part of the judgment and order of the first-instance court, the merger occurs only to that extent, leaving the rest intact and available for future consideration. The extent of merger is determined by the subject matter of the appeal. The merger can only operate on issues which were the subject-matter of the appellate court’s judgment and order and cannot have any application to issues which are not being taken on appeal by either party or which had not been touched upon by the appellate court. (Para 110) what gets merged is the operative part of the original judgment and order, not its entirety, unless the appellate court adopts, reiterates the reasoning, or expressly approves the reasoning contained in the first-instance court's judgment and order. Put differently, a 'declaration of law' by the appellate court regarding the issues before the first-instance court is necessary, which can only be inferred from a detailed, analytical order rather than a mere dismissal seeking closure of the case without clear discussion or analysis. Therefore, it becomes imperative to discern whether the appellate court's judgment and order indeed 'declares' the law on the issues presented before the first-instance court. (Para 113) The doctrine of merger may not have any application in all cases of cognate civil appeals being carried from the same order (obviously at the instance of a party different from the appellant who approached this Court first in point of time), if it is convincingly demonstrated that (i) his right of appeal should not be foreclosed because of the very rare or special circumstance(s) that is/are projected before the court; or (ii) his appeal raises an issue of seminal public importance, which was not available to be raised by the appellant who approached this Court in its appellate jurisdiction in the earlier round of litigation, and also that such issue in the greater public interest requires a resolution by this Court; or (iii) since an act of court ought to prejudice none, refusal to interfere by this Court would invariably result in offending the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit; or (iv) the earlier appellate decision is vitiated because of fraud having been practiced on this Court by a party in whose favour the ruling had been made, as in this case; or (v) that public interest would be put to extreme jeopardy by reason of irretrievable consequences ensuing, if interference which is otherwise found to be warranted in law were declined solely based on the doctrine of merger. (Para 123) If such a judgment and order is unsuccessfully challenged before a superior court by one of the petitioners to the proceedings, and such a challenge fails, the doctrine of merger may not apply when another set of petitioners challenges the same (common) judgement and order; if the second set of petitioners are able to demonstrate that the case run by them is not identical (though bearing resemblance) with the proceedings already decided, it would still be open for the superior court to entertain the challenge and rule in a manner different from the earlier proceedings.

Constitution of India - Article 32,226 - Although the provisions of the CPC do not apply to writ proceedings ex proprio vigore, the principles flowing therefrom, as far as practicable, can be made applicable. Order I Rule 9, CPC, as originally enacted, ordained that a suit shall not be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; however, after its amendment in 1976 introducing the proviso, the implication is that non-joinder of a party could, in a given case, prove fatal for the right to relief claimed by the plaintiff, more so when a necessary party is not impleaded, and defeat the suit. Although Order I Rule 10 does empower a court to implead at any stage of the proceedings a party who should have been joined as a defendant, either upon or without the application of either party, a decree passed by the court in the absence of a necessary or proper party to the suit and affecting his interest could be avoided by such party; however, if the decree is such that it acknowledges and declares the right of the decree-holder to the subject matter of the suit and entitles him to its benefits, such a decree has to be carried either in appeal or review by the affected non-party to divest the decree-holder of whatever the decree entitles him to. Insofar as writ proceedings are concerned, it is no longer res integra that any order made on a writ petition affecting the interest of a party who has not been arrayed as a respondent could be invalidated on the ground of breach of natural justice. (Para 43-44) - Suppression of even a single material fact can be fatal before writ courts. (Para 50) The High Courts are empowered under the Constitution to enforce legal rights, apart from Fundamental Rights, the power conferred under Article 226 is considered to be more expansive compared to the power under Article 32.(Para 67)

Constitution of India - Article 32 - Merely because a litigant barely pleads in his writ petition before this Court that any of his Fundamental Rights has been breached would not entitle him to maintain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. What is additionally necessary for him to plead is the nature of breach of Fundamental Right, actual or apprehended, and the (likely) consequence - For a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to be entertained, the petitioner has to run a case establishing prima facie violation or imminent threat of violation of any Fundamental Right. (Para 68-70) A loosely drafted writ petition under Article 32 ought not to be entertained in the absence of the requisite pleadings. Even where violation of a statutory right is sought to be camouflaged as violation of a Fundamental Right, or where a statutory right is found to have been predominantly violated with only an incidental infringement of a Fundamental Right, this Court may, in the judicious exercise of its discretion, refuse to entertain the writ petition while safeguarding the liberty of the suitor to pursue his writ remedy before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Para 75) a writ petition cannot lie against a judicial order

Legal Maxims and Doctrines - The principle of “fraud unravels everything” is not confined only to examining judgments rendered by the courts below but could include the unravelling of judgments of this Court as well, if at all the justice of the case before us so demands. (Para 84) Every Court, either superior or inferior – first or final – has jurisdiction in cases where a judgment of the court has been obtained by fraud to treat it as nullity. (Para 86) - Actus curiae neminem gravabit - No act of Court should harm a party being the foremost principle in the mind of any Court, it would be a travesty of justice if such court, feeling bound by the shackles of technicalities, were to decline interference to set things right despite arriving at a definitive conclusion of being tricked by fraud. (Para 130)

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - An appeal against a decree or order, passed or made by an inferior court, before a superior court and a review of the same decree/order before the court which passed/made it cannot simultaneously be pursued by the same party. The logic behind it is that there cannot be a parallel challenge to the same decree or order by the same party before two different fora – that is, in the courts of appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction. (Para 133)

Procedural law - Procedural law is a sentinel of non-arbitrariness; it not only provides a safeguard against the individual vagaries of a judge but also establishes a structured framework for litigants to approach the legal system for redressal of their issues. However, procedural law cannot foresee all situations that may arise. Procedure must facilitate justice, not detract from it. In special cases, the letter of procedural law must yield to the ends of justice. Courts are, of course, duty-bound to apply procedural law in its entirety, save where such application would result in manifest absurdity. (Para 125)