RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL & ANR. versus GOPI KRISHAN (DEAD THROUGH L.RS.) & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 11-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 127 
RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL & ANR. 
v. 
GOPI KRISHAN (DEAD THROUGH L.RS.) & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2798 of 2013) 
APRIL 11, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
c 
Or. IX r. 13 rl.w. s.151 - Land acquisition proceedings -
Land in joint ownership of two persons, acquired - Reference 
uls. 18 of Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of 
compensation by one of the owners - Without impleading the 
other owner as party - Grant of enhanced compensation by D 
the Reference Court - Application by the other owner u!Or. 
IX r. 13 rlw.s.151 - Maintainability of - Held: Application u!Or. 
IX r. 13 not maintainable by a non-party to the· proceedings -
However, such relief can be given in exercise of inherent 
powers uls. 151. if the order has been obtained by playing 
E 
fraud upon the Court - But, the same is not maintainable if 
the fraud is committed upon the party - In such eventuality, 
the aggrieved party can seek remedy by filing independent 
suit - In the instant case, the Reference Court could not have 
permitted the application u/Or. IX, r. 13 - It could not have 
permitted the application even in exercise of powers uls. 151, 
because in the instant case, the fraud was played upon the 
party and not the Court - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
s. 151 - Inherent powers of the Court- Nature and scope 
F 
of - Discussed. 
G 
/.and Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Reference Court -
Jurisdiction of - A person aggrieved can maintain an 
application for reference ulss. 18 or 30, but cannot make an 
127 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A application for impleadment or apportionment before the 
Reference Court. 
Respondent No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of the 
appellants were the joint owners of the land in question. 
8 The land was acquired under Land Acquisition Act. 
Respondent No.1 approached the authorities concerned 
to claim the compensation amount. In that case, 
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a party and 
after her death her legal heirs were brought on record. 
C In the meantime, appellants filed a Reference u/s. 18 of 
the Acquisition Act, for enhancement of the 
compensation in respect of her half share. In that case, 
respondent No.1 was not made a party. The Tribunal held 
that the appellants were entitled to receive the 
compensation amount, including the enhanced amount. 
D Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed an application under 
Order IX r. 13 r/w. s.151 CPC for the purpose of setting 
aside the ex-parte award. The Tribunal rejected the 
application. Respondent No.1 preferred writ petition, 
challenging the order of the Tribunal and the same was 
E allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
were whether an application under Or. IX r.13 CPC is 
maintainable by a person, who was not party to the suit 
F and if such application is not maintainable, whether such 
. relief can be granted in exercise of the inherent powers 
u/s. 151 CPC; and whether the provisions of CPC are 
applicable to the Land acquisition proceedings. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC 
cannot be filed by a person who was not initially a party 
to the proceedings. In exceptional circumstances, the 
Court may exercise its inherent powers, apart from Order 
H IX CPC to set aside an ex parte decree. An ex-parte 
RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL v. GOPI KRISHAN\DEAD 129 
THROUGH L.RS.) 
IX CPC to set aside an ex parte decree. An ex-parte 
A 
decree passed due to the non-appearance of the counsel 
of a party, owing to the fact that the party was not at fault, 
can be set aside in an appeal preferred against it. So is 
the case, where the absence of a defendant is caused on 
account of a mistake of the Court. An application under 
B 
Section 151 CPC will be maintainable, in the event that 
an ex parte order has been obtained by fraud upon the 
court or by collusion. The provisions of Order IX CPC 
may not be attracted, and in such a case, the Court may 
either restore the case, or set aside the ex parte order in c 
the exercise of its inherent powers. [Paras 9 and 20(i)] 
[147-A; 140-C-E] 
Smt. Santosh Chopra vs. Teja Singh and Anr. AIR 1977 
Del 110; Smt. Suraj Kumari vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and 
Ors. AIR 1991 All 75 - relied on. 
D 
2. Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision 
that confers the right to get any relief of any kind. It is a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.