2022 (8) TMI 1352 - SC - Indian Laws

Appropriate Forum - Whether the High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, when alternate remedies exist under the CPC? - whether the Senior Judge on the Bench, who appeared for one of the parties, ought not to have heard the matter? HELD THAT - Section 151 of the CPC provides for Civil Courts to invoke their inherent jurisdiction and utilize the same to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. Although such a provision is worded broadly, this Court has tempered the provision to limit its ambit to only those circumstances where certain procedural gaps exist, to ensure that substantive justice is not obliterated by hyper technicalities. In exercising powers under Section 151 of the CPC, it cannot be said that the civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues. A Court having jurisdiction over the relevant subject matter has the power to decide and may come either to a right or a wrong conclusion. Even if a wrong conclusion is arrived at or an incorrect decree is passed by the jurisdictional court, the same is binding on the parties until it is set aside by an appellate court or through other remedies provided in law - Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law. Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code. Section 151 cannot be invoked as an alternative to filing fresh suits, appeals, revisions, or reviews. A party cannot find solace in Section 151 to allege and rectify historic wrongs and bypass procedural safeguards inbuilt in the CPC. Recalling a final decree in such circumstances cannot be countenanced under Section 151 of the CPC. The High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, to hear and pass a detailed judgment recalling its earlier final decree dated 19.09.2013, rather than directing the respondents to pursue the effective alternate remedies under law. It is a well established principle, both in jurisprudence and across the world, that N ot only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done - In the present circumstances, it may have been more apposite for the concerned Judge to have recused from this case. The appellant should have brought it to the notice of the learned senior Judge at the very first instance, and not at this belated stage. The High Court should not have decided the recall application filed by the respondents, let alone pass such extensive orders which has the effect of unsettling proceedings and transactions which have a history of more than 60 years in a proceeding, basing on an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC. - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC.
2. Recusal of a judge due to potential bias.
3. Allegations of fraud and suppression of information.
4. Delay in filing recall applications.
5. Rights of third parties to file recall applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC:
The primary issue was whether the High Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to recall its final decree dated 19.09.2013. Section 151 provides inherent powers to civil courts to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. However, this power is limited and cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies not contemplated under the Code. The court noted that Section 151 should only be invoked when no alternate remedies exist. In this case, the respondents had access to recourse under Section 96 of the CPC, which allows for appeals from an original decree. The High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC, rather than directing the respondents to pursue effective alternate remedies under law.

2. Recusal of a judge due to potential bias:
The appellant raised the issue of potential bias, arguing that the senior member of the Bench, who had presided over the earlier dismissal of the State of Telangana's appeal, should not have heard the recall application. The High Court dismissed this concern, noting that the earlier appeal was dismissed due to delay, without discussing the merits of the matter. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized the principle that "justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done." The material indicated that the Senior Judge had represented a party in related proceedings, raising concerns about perceived bias. Although the appellant did not raise this issue at the appropriate time, the Court acknowledged that it would have been more appropriate for the judge to recuse himself.

3. Allegations of fraud and suppression of information:
The respondents alleged that the appellant obtained the final decree by suppressing certain information. The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 151 of the CPC, recalled its earlier final decree on grounds of fraud. However, the Supreme Court noted that while fraud nullifies all proceedings, the power under Section 151 should be exercised with caution and within the restrictions observed by the Court in previous judgments. The respondents should have pursued alternate remedies rather than invoking Section 151.

4. Delay in filing recall applications:
The respondents filed the recall application nearly seven years after the final decree was granted. The appellant argued that the application should have been dismissed on grounds of delay. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or file an application for condonation of delay. The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards in the CPC should not be bypassed, and the recall application should have been dismissed due to the inordinate delay.

5. Rights of third parties to file recall applications:
The respondents, who were not parties to the original suit, filed the recall application as third parties. The Supreme Court acknowledged that a person affected by a judgment but not a party to the suit can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court. However, the respondents should have filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC rather than invoking Section 151. The High Court should have directed the respondents to pursue their remedies through appropriate legal channels.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order dated 21.09.2021, which recalled the final decree dated 19.09.2013. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards and alternate remedies provided under the CPC, rather than invoking inherent powers under Section 151. The issue of potential bias was also acknowledged, underscoring the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

← Previous Next →