AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The revision petition before us statedly asks this Court to interfere only with the Lower Court''s order, dated the 27th February 1912. It,
however, also contains a prayer for the setting aside of an order directing the petitioner''s prosecution, which was, it appears actually passed on the
29th February 1912. We cannot, deal with the order of the 29th February 1912 on this petition.
The order of the 27th February 1912 was one by the District Munsif of Chowghat vacating his previous order recording satisfaction of a decree
on the ground that the latter was obtained by the petitioner''s gross fraud on his Court. This petition is argued on the ground that the District Munsif
had no power to pass such an order.
We should be prepared to sustain the order, as passed under either Section 47 or Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. But it is sufficient
that it was passed in the exercise of the Courts inherent power u/s 151 of the CPC to vacate an order obtained by manifest fraud on it. The
propriety of such exercise was recognised in Paranjpe v. Kanade ILR (1882) B. 148 and Subbaji Rau v. Srinivasa Rau and Pulliah ILR (1880)
M. 264 and this is sufficient ground for our refusal to interfere.
The Petition is dismissed with costs.