P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE limit to which the inherent power of a Court under Sec. 151 CPC can be exercised is the main point that falls for consideration in this provision. In its material terms, Sec. 151 CPC provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice.

( 2 ) THE material facts can now be noticed. The 1st respondent bank filed O. S. No. 1225/80 on the file of the 2nd Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad, and O. S. No. 1233/80 on the file of the 5th Asst. Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, against certain defendants of whom one Guduri laxminarayana was a common defendant. When O. S. No. 1233/80 came up for hearing before the 5th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 4-8-1980, the 5th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, recorded the following proceedings :"written statement of D-l (Laxminarayana, the 1st defedant in that suit) is not filed. D-l is present. Counsel for D-3 is present. D-l filed a letter from the manager of the plaintiffbank who has executed that the entire outstanding in this suit has been recovered in full and accounts stood closed. Counsel for the plaintiff bank is absent, though the matter is passed over till 3 p. m. Hence recovery is recorded. In the result suit is dismissed. No costs. "there is now no dispute that the said suit O. S. 1233/80 on the file of the 5th Asst. Judge was in fact adjusted out of court. Under the material terms of Order 23, Rule 3 CPC. "where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject matter of the suit, the Court shall order such satisfaction to be recorded. "the aforesaid order dated 4-8-1980 made by the 5th Asst. Judge in O. S. No. 1233/80 has, therefore, recorded satisfaction of the claim made by the plaintiff in that suit.

( 3 ) O. S. NO 1225/80 filed against the revision petitioner one Guduri laxminarayana and another Shaik Mahboob stood posted for trial oft 29-12-1980. The petitioner and Guduri Laxminarayana filed written statement contesting the suit and issues were also framed. On 10-12-1980, the bank s advocate filed a petition stating that the subject-matter of the suit was settled out of court and that the said suit posted to 29-12-1980 may be advanced to 10-12-1980 and necessary orders may be passed. The suit was, therefore, advanced from 29-12-1980 to 10-12-1980 and on that day the bank s advocate endorsed on the plaint that satisfaction may be recorded. The Counsel for the defendants in that suit endorsed no objection. The suit was accordingly dismissed without costs on 10-12-1980. There is no dispute that in fact there was no adjustment entered into between the parties in O. S. No. 1225/80 and there was no satisfaction of the claim either.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff bank received back the documents filed by it in o. S. No. 1225/80 and soon found that by a mistake the bank s advocate filed the petition in O. S. No. 1225/80 when in fact it has reference to O. S. No. 1233/80. The plaintiff-bank filed T. A. No. 124/81 under Order 9, Rule 9 and sec. 151 CPC to restore the suit after setting aside the order passed on 10-12-1980. The petitioner raised objection that a petition under Order 9 rule 9 is not maintainable and that the Court cannot exercise its inherent power to restore the suit. The 5th Asst. Judge held that though Order 9, rule 9 may not be applicable, the Court has the inherent power to restore the suit as the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned in this revision.

( 5 ) IN support of his submission, Mr. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Ramalal Sahu vs. Dina nath Mohammed S hafi vs. Chedul and Rajgopala Rao vs. Bhanoji Rao. Ramlal Sahu case (supra) had also considered Mohammed Shaft s case (supra ). It is, therefore enough if the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document