SRI DADU DAYAL MAHASABHAversusSUKHDEV ARYA AND ANOTHER

                SRI DADU DAYAL 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
                                                                              c
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      D
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        E
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.                                           F

     This appeal by special leave, is against the High Court's
judgment.

       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.
                                                                              H

                                   233
    234          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

            The respondents argued that the only remedy available to the
A   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,
B   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
c 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; Vilakathala Raman v. Vayalil Pachu, 27 Madras Law Jour-
H   nal Reports 172 and Basangowda Hanmantgowda Patil and Anr. v.
              D.D. MAHASABHA v. S. ARYA [SHARMA, Jj                   235

Churchugirigowda Yogangowda and Anr., I.LR 34 Bombay 408,
appro\\ed.                                                                   A

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No .. 3901
of 1981.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.1987 of the Rajasthan            B
High Court in S.B. Civil Revision No. 672 of 1983.

      V.M. Tarkunde and L.K. Pandey for the Appellant.

      J.P. Goyal, R.K. Gupta, K.K. Gupta, (NP) and Rajesh, (NP)
for the Respondents.
                                                                             c
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment of Rajasthan High Court dismissing a civil revision applica-
tion filed b}'·the appellant in the following circumstances.                 D

      2. The appellant, a registered Society, filed the suit out of which
this appeal arises in the court of the District.Judge, Jaipur City in
respect of an immovable property through its the then Secretary which
was numbered as Suit No. 11 of 1973. The counsel engaged by the
appellant were Sri Satya Narain Sharma and Sri Shyam Bihari Agar-            E
wal. The suit was later transferred to the court of Additional District
Judge No. 1, Jaipur City where it was renumbered as Suit No. 116 of
1974. After the institution of the suit, an election of the office bearers
of the Society was held on 1.6.1973 and according to the appellant's
case one Sri Laxman Das Swami was elected as the Secretary. On
4.9.74 a prayer for withdrawing the suit was made by one Hari Narain         p
Swami through another lawyer claiming to have been elected as the
Secretary of the Society. In support of his claim of having been elected
as the Secretary of"the Society Hari Narain Swami produced certain
documents on the basis of which the Trial Court allowed the suit to be
withdrawn. According to the case of the appellant, Hari Narain Swami
was not elected as the Secretary and had no locus standi to withdraw         G
the suit. Since no notice was given of his application for withdrawal of
the suit either to the then Secretary Laxman Das Swami or to the
learned advocates Sri Satya Narain Sharma or Sri Shyam Bihari Agar-
wal, through whom the suit had been instituted, none of them had any
knowledge of the order passd by the court. Later, in the next election,
another Secretary named Jeeva Nand Swami was elected, and when he            H
    236         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    learnt about the fate of the suit, an application was filed for recalling
A   the order of withdrawal and restoring the suit to its file. The prayer
    was contested and the trial court rejected the application. The appel-
    lant Society challenged the order before the High Court by a petition
    under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was also dismissed
    by the impugned judgment.
B
          3. The trial court after holding that the appellant's application
    filed under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not maintain-
    able, proceeded further to consider the question as to who was the
    duly elected Secretary of the Society, entitled to prosecute or with-
    draw the suit and accepted the case of Hari Narain Swami. The High
    Court has agreed with the trial court that the application under s. 151
c   of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable. While agreeing·
    with the argument of the appellant that the trial court had committed
    several serious errors in deciding the qustion as to who was the elected
    Secretary of the Society on the relevant date in favour of the respon-
    dent the High Court observed that the mistake could not be corrected
D   in the present situation.

          4. It has been contended by Mr. Tarkunde, the learned counsel
    for the appellant, that the application under>. 151 of the Code of Civil
    Procedure, for restoration of the suit was maintainable and the error
    committed by the trial court while recording the finding on the merits
E   of the case was such which the High Court ought to have rectified. The
    learned advocate representing the respondents has strenuously argued
    that the trial court has no jurisdiction to recall its order permitting the
    withdrawal of the suit under its inherent power and the High Court has
    rightly held that the only remedy of the appellant is to file a fresh suit.
    The finding recorded by the trial court on the merits of the case has
    also been relied upon.

          5. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the cor-
    rectness of the trial court's finding in favour of the respondent's case
    that Hari Narain Swami had been duly elected as the Secretary of the
    appellant Society and had, therefore, full authority to withdraw the
G   suit, on several grounds. Since we are of the view that the case has to
    go back to the trial court for reconsideration of the evidence on this
    point, we do not propose to deal with the argument on behalf of the
    appellant in detail, except mentioning one of them. It has been stated
    that a dispute, relating to the election of the Secretary of the Society,
    had arisen between the parties which ultimately went before the
H   Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, who decided the matter in
              D.D. MAHASABHA v. S. ARYA !SHARMA, J.J                    237

favour of Laxman Das Swami and against Hari Narain Swami. A writ
                                                                               A
petition filed thereafter by Hari Narain Swami before the High Court
(registered as C.W.P. No. 1406 of 1975)"was dismissed. It is said that
the trial court failed to appreciate the impact of the judgments of the
Registrar and the High Court which has vitiated the impugned deci-
sion. In reply, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the High Court in C.W.P. No. 1406 of 1975 did not             B
decide the dispute finally and left it to be settled by the civil court.
Beyond pointing out that even according to the impugned judgment of
the High Court the errors in the ;Hdgment of the trial court are serious,
we do not consider it appropriate to deal in detail with the arguments
of the learned counsel, as the disputed question has to go back for
reconsideration.
                                                                               c
       6. The main question which requires consideration, however, is
whether the trial court has jurisdiction to cancel the order permitting
the withdrawal of the suit under its inherent power, if it is ultimately
satisfied that Hari Narain Swami was not the Secretary of the appellant
Society and was, therefore, not entitled to withdraw the suit. The             D
position is well established that a court has inherent power to correct
its own proceedings when it is satisfi~d that in passing a particular
order it was misled by one of the parties. The principle was correctly
discussed in the judgment in Sadho Saran Rai and Others v. Anant Rai
and Others, AIR 1923 Patna 483, pointing out the distinction in cases
between fraud practised upon the court and fraud practised upon a              E
party.

       7. Let us consider the cases in which consent decrees are cha!-.
lenged. If a party makes an application before the Court for setting
aside the decree on the ground that he did not give his consent, the
court has the power and duty to invstigate the matter and to set aside         F
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 fraudulent representation
made to it that the party had actually consented to it. However, if the
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 has been
procured by fraud, the court cannot investigate the matter in the exer-        G
cise of its inherent power, and the only remedy to the party is to
institute a suit. It was succinctly summed up in the aforementioned
case that the factum of the consent can be investigated in summary
proceedings, but the reality of the consent cannot be so investigated.
The principle has been followed in this country for more than a
century. In Vilakathala Raman v. Vayali/ Pachu, 27 Madras Law Jour-            H
    238         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

   nal Reports 172, the trial court had vacated its previous order regard-
A  ing satsfaction of decree on the ground that the same was obtained by
   the judgment debtor's fraud on the court. The High Court, while
  confirming the order, said that in the exercise of inherent power under
   s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure a court can vacate an order
  .,0biained by fraud on it. Reliance had been placed on an old decision of
B Bombay High Court of 1882 and a Madras decision of 1880. In
   Basangowda Hanmantgowda Patil and Others v. Churchigirigowda
   Yogangowda and Another, l.L.R. 34 Bombay 408, the defendant
   applied to the· court to set aside a compromise decree on the ground
   that he had not engaged the lawyer claiming to be representing him
   and had not authorisd him to compromise the suit. The court accepted
   his plea and ruled that it is the inherent power of every court to correct
c its own proceedings when.it has been misled. Similar was the view of
   the Calcutta High Court in several decisions mentioned in Sadho
   Saran's case (supra). The ratio has been later followed in a string of
   decisions of several High Courts. The same principle applies where a
   suit is permitted to be withdrawn on the basis of a prayer purported to
D have been made on behalf of the plaintiff. The courts below were,
   therefore, not right in 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 Hari Narain Swami was not
   its elected secretary and was, therefore, not authorised to withdraw
   the suit, the prayer for withdrawing the suit was not made on behalf of
E the appellant at all and the impugned order was passed as a result of
   the court being misled. Such an order cannot bind the appellant and
   has to be vacated. The trial court was thus clearly wrong in dismissing
   the appellant's application as not maintainable, and the 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.
F          8. So far the finding of the trial court that Hari Narain Swami
     was not the elected Secretary of the appellant Society with authority to
     withdraw the suit is concerned, the same suffers from several errors
     and requires a reconsideration. Even in the view of the High Court
     that is the position, but it declind to exercise its revisional power on
G    the assumption that it had no jurisdiction to do so. We, therefore,
     allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the trial court
     and the High Court and remit the matter to the trial court for reconsid-
     eration of the case on merits. The parties shall be allowed to lead
     further evidence in support of their cases. The costs will abide the final
     result in the litigation.
 M G.N.                                                      Appeal allowed.