VIKAS AGGARWAL versus ANUBHA

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1084 · Decided: 12-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIK.AS AGGARWAL 
v. 
A NUB HA 
APRIL 12, 2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code. 1908; Order X, XX.XIX, Section 151. 
Order X-Examination of Parties-Scope and ambit of-Held, It is an 
C enabling provision for the Court to seek clarification from any party at any · 
date even before the date fu:ed for framing issues in the interest of justice. 
Section 151-Inherent power of the Court-Exercise of-Held, it is open 
for the Court to pass a suitable consequential order as may be necessary for 
D meeting the ends of justice-Specific Relief Act; Section 41(a) and (b). 
Appellant and respondent had solemnized marriage and went to U.S.A. 
but did not pull on well and appellant filed a Divorce petition in u;s.A. 
Meanwhile respondent managed to return tolndia and filed a suit for judicial 
separation and for payment of maintenance allowance. Single Judge passed 
E an interim order directing the appellant-defendant to get the hearing in 
divorce case pending in the Superior Court in U.S.A. deferred for a period 
of 30 days. Appellant instead of complying with the order moved an 
application for recall of the Order passed by the Single Judge and 
subsequently informed the Court that Superior Court in U.S.A. had passed a 
decree of divorce in the pending matter. Single Judge directed the respondent 
F to appear in person by issuing an Order under Order X, CPC, against which · 
appellant preferred an appeal but with-drew it later. Ultimately, the High 
Court struck down the defence of the appellant. Aggrie)'ed, appellant 
preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
It was contended for the appellant that Order X, C.P.C. would not be 
applicable at all and the Order of the High Court in that respect was invalid; 
that a party can be examined under Order X on the 1st hearing of the suit 
since 1st hearing date would not be any date before a date fixed for settlement 
of issues; and that under Order X Rule 4, defendant's personal attendance 
H was not necessary; that no material or important question relating to the suit 
1084 
VIKAS AGGARWAL v. ANUBHA 
1085 
need to be answered by the defendant; and that no injunction order could be A 
passed against a foreign Court under Section 4l(a) and (b) of the Specific 
Relief Act. 
It was contended for the respondent that Section 4l(a) and (b) of the 
Specific Relief Act put a bar on Courts to pass an order in relation to Superior 
Courts in India and not apply to Courts in foreign country; that restraint B 
order was against the defendant restraining him from proceeding further in 
the matter for a period of one month; that under the circumstances of the 
case, Single Judge was justified to order defendant-appellant to personally 
appear before the Court for clarification; and that inherent powers of the 
Court under Section 151 CPC can be exercised in the interest of justice. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. There was nothing in Order XXXIX of the Code which 
expressly or by necessary implication precluded the exercise of inherent power 
of Court under Section 151 CPC and it was open for the Court to pass a D 
suitable consequential Order striking off th~ defence under Section 151 CPC 
as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process 
-"' 
. of Court (1091-F] 
Mis. Ram Chand and Sons Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Kanhaya Lal Bhargava 
and Ors., [1966] 3 SCR 856 and Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja E 
Seth Hira/a/, (1962] Supp. 1 SCR 450, relied on. 
2. The question regarding first date of hearing is too technical a ground 
to consider the matter like the present one. Order X CPC in an enabling 
provision providing that the Court at the first hearing of the suit shall ascertain 
from each party about their pleadings. It does not in any manner place any F 
bar on the powers of the Court to seek clarification from any party in an 
appropriate case, at.any date earlier than one fixed for framing of issues so 
as to advance the interest of justice. It would not be in violation of Order X 
CPC or in conflict thereof. Considering the facts and circumstances of the 
present case, no interference is called for under Article 136 of the Constitution. G 
[1092-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 2660 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2000 of the Delhi High H 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002] 2 S.C.R . 
. ·. A Cour

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