9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether an application under Section 151, Civil P. C. could be filed to set aside an order passed on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. Analysis: The judgment by the Patna High Court, delivered by Chief Justice Syed Jafar Imam, addressed the issue of whether an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code could be utilized to set aside an order passed on an application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the same Code. The case involved an ex parte order in a Miscellaneous Case, leading to the filing of an application under Section 151 to challenge the said order. The Munsif found that fraud had been committed in obtaining the order, and the petitioners discovered the existence of the case only after the opposite party filed their written statement in a separate suit. The Munsif concluded that the order setting aside the sale was a result of fraud on the court. The learned advocate argued that since an appeal remedy was available, the Section 151 application was not maintainable, citing a Calcutta High Court case. However, the Patna High Court distinguished the present case from the Calcutta case, emphasizing that the petitioners were not at fault or negligent in their actions. The court upheld the inherent power of a court to rectify an order obtained through fraud. The judgment referenced a previous decision by a single Judge of the court and supported the view that the court has the authority to set aside an order procured through fraudulent means. Continuing the analysis, the judgment highlighted that the mere availability of an appeal remedy with a prayer for condonation of delay did not strip the petitioners of their right to seek the court's intervention under Section 151 to set aside an order obtained through fraud. The court emphasized that if an order was based on a misconception caused by fraud, the court had the inherent power to correct the injustice. The judgment also referenced decisions from the Calcutta High Court to support the stance that a court can rectify an order procured through fraudulent means. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, stating that the order was not without jurisdiction or passed with material irregularity. Justice Ranjan Das concurred with the decision, and the application was dismissed with costs. In conclusion, the judgment by the Patna High Court established the court's inherent power to set aside an order obtained through fraud, even if an appeal remedy was available. The court emphasized that if an order was tainted by fraud, the court had the authority to correct the injustice and protect the party affected by the prejudicial order. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the position that the court's inherent power could be invoked in such circumstances.
|
