SRI DADU DAYAL MAHASABHA versus SUKHDEV ARYA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 17-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI DADU DAY AL MAHASABHA 
A 
v. 
SUKHDEV ARYA AND ANOTHER 
NOVEMBER 17, 1989 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Sections 115 and 151-Civil Court-
Invoking of inherent power to correct its own proceedings-When it is 
misled by any of the parties-Revision-High Court could intervene 
when trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 15 I. 
Practice and Procedure: Courts-When misled by any of the 
parties-Could invoke inherent power to correct its own proceedings. 
The appellant, a registered society, instituted a suit through its 
Secretary in respect of an immovable property. Afterwards, the elec-
tion of the office bearers for the Society was held and one 'X' claiming 
to be the Secretary of the Society tiled an application for withdrawing 
the suit and the trial court allowed the same. 
In the subsequent election, one 'Y' was elected as Secretary and 
he tiled an application for recalling the order of withdrawal and for 
restoring the suit. The application was contested and. the trial court 
rejected the application. The appellant challenged the order before the 
High Court by way of a petition under section llS CPC. The High 
Court observed that the trial court had committed several serious 
errors in deciding the question as to who was the elected Secretary of the 
Society on the relevant date in favour of the respondent but held that 
the mistake could not be corrected. 
This appeal by special leave, is against the High Court's 
judgment. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the trial court 
failed to appreciate that 'X' was not the elected Secretary of the Society, 
G 
as was held by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and that 'X' did 
not also. succeed before the High Court in this regard. And hence, he 
was not competent to withdraw the suit. It has been contended that the 
error committed by the trial court ought to have been rectified by the 
High Court. 
233 
H 
A 
B 
c 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
The respondents argued that the only remedy available to the 
appellant was to file a fresh suit. It was contended that the High court 
rightly did not decide the dispute finally regarding election of 'X' and 
left it to be settled by the Civil Court. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the trial court, 
this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The position is well established that a court has inhe-
rent power to correct its own proceedings when it is satisfied that in 
passing a particular order it was misled by one of the parties. [2370] 
1.2 If a party makes an application before the Court for setting 
aside the decree on the ground that be did not give his consent, the court 
has the power and duty to investigate the matter and to set aside the 
decree if it is satisfied that the consent as a fact was lacking and the 
court was induced to pass the decree on a fradulent representation 
made to it that the party had actually consented to it. However, if the 
D case of the party challenging the decree is that he was in fact a party to 
the compromise petition filed in the case but his consent had been 
procured by fraud, the court cannot investigate the matter in the exer-
cise of its inherent power, and the only remedy to the party is to insti-
tute a suit. [237F-G] 
1.3 So far as the finding of the trial court that X was the elected 
Secretary of the appellant Society with authority to withdraw the suit is 
concerned, the same suffers from several errors and requires reconsi-
deration. Even in the view of the High Court that is the position, but it 
declined to exercise its revisional power on the assumption that it had 
no jurisdiction to do so. The courts below were, therefore, not right in 
F holding that the application of the appellant invoking the inherent 
jurisdiction of the court was not maintainable. If the appellant's case is 
factually correct that X was not its elected Secretary and was, there-
fore, not authorised to withdraw the suit, the prayer for withdrawing 
the suit was not made on behalf of the appellant at all and the impugned 
order was passed as a result of the court being misled. Such an order 
G cannot bind the appellant and has to be vacated. High Court should 
have intervened in its revisional power on the ground that the trial 
court had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law. [238F-G; D-EJ 
Sadho Saran Rai and Ors. v. Anant Rai and Ors., AIR 1923 
Patna 483; Vilakatha

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