9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court to recall the order allowing withdrawal of the suit. 2. Application of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order. 3. Interpretation of inherent powers of the Court to do justice between the parties. Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Trial Court to recall the order allowing withdrawal of the suit: The case involved an agreement for sale of premises which was later cancelled. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance, which was later withdrawn without leave to file a fresh suit. The Trial Court allowed the withdrawal without granting leave. The High Court, in exercise of powers under Article 227, restored the suit for trial. The appellants contended that without a prayer for leave to file a fresh suit, the Trial Court or the High Court had no authority to entertain the respondent's application for restoration. However, the High Court relied on inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to restore the suit, emphasizing the need to do justice between the parties. Issue 2: Application of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order: The Trial Court's initial order allowing withdrawal of the suit did not include any provision for filing a fresh suit. The respondent later sought to recall this order citing misrepresentation by the property owners. The Trial Court, in its discretion, rejected this application. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC, restored the suit for trial, emphasizing the need to correct any injustice caused by the withdrawal of the suit based on misrepresentation. Issue 3: Interpretation of inherent powers of the Court to do justice between the parties: The High Court's decision to restore the suit was challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court clarified that in the absence of specific provisions in the CPC, inherent powers under Section 151 can be utilized to ensure justice between the parties. The Court cited precedent where similar circumstances warranted the setting aside of an order permitting withdrawal of a suit. The principle of acting ex debito justitiae for substantial justice guided the Court's decision to uphold the restoration of the suit. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to restore the suit based on the application of inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to rectify any injustice caused by the withdrawal of the suit without leave to file a fresh suit. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring justice between the parties in the absence of specific procedural provisions, citing precedent where similar actions were deemed necessary for substantial justice.
|
