AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3272 ::2000 AIR SCW 3659 ::(2001) RevDec 53 ::(2001) 1 CivilCourtC 1 ::2000 (7) SCC 543 ::(2000) 4 RecCivR 749 ::(2000) 6 Scale 681 ::(2001) 43 All LR 92 ::2000 HRR 734 ::(2001) 1 ICC 164 ::(2001) 1 Pun LR 287(2) ::(2000) 4 SCJ 128 ::(2001) 1 LandLR 614 ::(2000) 4 CurCC 151 ::(2000) 7 Supreme 102 ::(2000) 2 CurLJ(CCR) 565

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Punjab and Haryana)

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. Jagannadha Rao, K. G. Balakrishnan , JJ

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.11— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.44— Res judicata - Collusive decree - Plea that decree passed in earlier proceedings was collusive - That it would not operate as res judicata - Can be raised in latter proceedings - Filing of separate suit for declaration that decree was collusive - Not a condition precedent for raising such plea - Principle applies to proceedings under S. 7 of Punjab Act. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961) , S.7— AIR 1991 Punj and Har 159, Overruled. In order to contend in a latter suit or proceeding that an earlier judgment was obtained by collusion, it is not necessary to file an independent suit for a declaration as to its collusive nature or for setting it aside, as a condition precedent. A contrary view would go against the provisions of Section 44 of the Evidence Act. That section provides that any party to a suit or proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Sections 40, 41, 42 and which has been delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it or was obtained by fraud or collusion.(Para 5 6 7) It cannot be said that it was not open to the statutory authorities under the Punjab Act to go into the collusive nature of earlier suit in the proceedings under S. 7 ....