No one should have an advantage from his own wrong

A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.

A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.

In Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Girdharilal Yadhav, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 325, the Supreme Court observed:

“11. The admitted facts remain that the respondent is a permanent resident of Haryana. It further stands admitted that at the relevant time, Ahirs/Yadavs of Haryana were not treated as OBC. It further stands admitted that the respondent obtained a certificate showing that he was a resident of Rajasthan, which he was not. It is not disputed that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate, Kota, wherein the respondent had been given an opportunity of hearing. It is also not in dispute that he had given an opportunity to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled not only by the appointing authority but also by the Appellate Authority. In terms of sec.58 of the Evidence Act, 1972, facts admitted need not be proved. It is also a well settled principle of law that the principles of natural justice should not be stretched too far and the same cannot be put in a straitjacket formula.

In Bar Council of India Vs. High Court of Kerala, reported in 2004 (6) SCC 311, this Court (SC) has noticed that “24. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at later stage, cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, 2003 (7) SCC 492, of which two of us (VN Khare, CJ. and Sinha J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions it was held. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby.”

The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, must not be stretched too far. (see. Mardia Chemicals Ltd vs. Union of India, 2004 (4) SCC 311; and Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das, 2003 (4) SCC  577).

In Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, 1985 (3) SCC 398, whereupon SC held that “though the two rules of natural justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, have now a definite meaning and connotation in law and their content and implications are well understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of these rules yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to situations which are not like. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal straitjacket. They are not immutable but flexible. These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules and also by the constitution of the Tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such Tribunal is governed.”

In Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2011 (12) SCC 588, the SC held that – “15. Respondent 2 herself had been a party to the fraud committed by the appellant upon the civil court for getting the decree of divorce as alleged by her in the impugned complaint. Thus, according to her own admission she herself is an abettor to the crime.

A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum as explained by the legal maxim “allegans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus”.

No one should have an advantage from his own wrong (commondum ex injura sua memo habere debet).

No action arises from an immoral cause (ex turpi cause non oritur action).

Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action (volenti non fit injuria).

The statements/ allegations made by the Respondent 2 patently and latently involve her in the alleged fraud committed upon the court. Thus, she made herself disentitled for any equitable relief.”

**