High CourtsSingle Bench(1987) 08 AHC CK 0016

Ramanand Pandey vs Sureshmani Pandey

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 25 August 1987 · Citation: (1988) 2 AWC 1424 : (1989) RD 169

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Khanna, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 479 of 1987

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 399 words

V.K. Khanna, J.—This revision has been filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur dated 13th March, 1987 dismissing the application made by the applicant u/s 151 Code of Civil Procedure.

2.

The short controversy which is involved in this revision is as to whether the application moved by the applicant u/s 151 CPC was maintainable as admittedly the provision of Order 9 Rule 12 CPC were not applicable to the case.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants has urged that the allegations made in the application and that the order had been procured from the Court by playing fraud and in such a case the court had an inherent power to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders.

4.

The learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party has however urged that on the allegations which have been made in the application it can at best be inferred that fraud had been played on the party and not on the court and in such a situation the proper remedy was to file a suit.

5.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length I am of the opinion that the allegations as they stand in the application clearly show that the applicant''s case was that the order is the result of fraud played on the court, without expressing any opinion on the allegations which have been made in the application court below had jurisdiction to deal with the application u/s 151 CPC the Court below has therefore acted without jurisdiction in holding that the application was not maintainable. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. The court below will now decide the application in the light of the observations made in the order and in accordance with law.

6.

Before parting it may be observed that the case is pending for some time. Opposite party will file certified copy of this order before the court below and the court below will try to dispose of the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the certified copy. Subject to the aforesaid observations the present revision is allowed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.

7.

Copy of this order will be given to the learned Counsel for the parties within 3 days on payment of usual charges.