1982 Supreme(Bom) 222

Bombay High Court
PADHYE
Gangabai - Appellant
Versus
Ratankumar - Respondent
Decided On : 08/25/1982

A court has inherent powers to correct its own mistakes, even if the order is not a nullity.

Headnote:

M.P. TEMPORARY POSTPONEMENT OF EXECUTION OF DECREES ACT, 1956 - BOMBAY MONEY LENDERS ACT - BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL DEBTORS RELIEF ACT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 151 - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT - NULLITY OF ORDER - JURISDICTION - CORRECTION OF MISTAKE - REVIVAL OF APPLICATION - SUMMARY PROCEDURE - SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS - RES JUDICATA - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 3 - SECTION 48 - SECTION 105(2) - ORDER 9, RULE 9 - ORDER 37, RULE 4:

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree against defendants for foreclosure on the basis of a mortgage. Defendants filed an application under Section 24 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act claiming instalments. They also filed an application under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act, 1956 (M.P. Act), praying for postponement of final decree proceedings. The M.P. Act was extended from time to time and expired on 27th March 1969. Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtors Relief Ordinance 1969 came into force on 7-3-1969 and was replaced by Maharashtra Act of the same nomenclature being Act No. XXII of 1969. Defendants filed another application under the above referred Ordinance praying that procedure for adjustment of debts, as provided in the Ordinance and thereafter by Act, had to be followed by the plaintiffs. The court passed an order dismissing the application for making the decree final, holding that the execution of the decree shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra (Vidarbha Region) Agricultural Debtors Reliefs Act (No. XXII of 1969). Plaintiff filed an application praying that order be treated as a nullity and the application seeking final decree be decided or his application dt. 6-10-1971 be treated as a fresh application for final decree, since it was within limitation and Order Ex.9 was invalid. The learned trial judge allowed plaintiff's application by order dated 13-2-1975. Defendants challenged the impugned order by filing an appeal before the District Judge, Amravati who held that appeal was not maintainable. The appellate order was challenged in C.R.A. No. 270 of 1978 which was disposed of without going into merits and confirming the view adopted by the learned District Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order passed on the applications filed under the M.P. Act and the Bombay Ordinance was passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity. The court also found that the court had inherent powers to correct its own mistakes, even if the order was not a nullity. The court further found that the revival of the application for making the decree final was permissible since it was within time.

Issues: 1. Whether the order passed on the applications filed under the M.P. Act and the Bombay Ordinance was passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity? 2. Whether the court had inherent powers to correct its own mistakes, even if the order was not a nullity? 3. Whether the revival of the application for making the decree final was permissible since it was within time?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order passed on the applications filed under the M.P. Act and the Bombay Ordinance was passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity because the court failed to take into account the relevant pleadings and the provisions of the Acts. 2. The court held that it had inherent powers to correct its own mistakes, even if the order was not a nullity, because it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. 3. The court held that the revival of the application for making the decree final was permissible since it was within time and there was no specific bar to the maintainability of the subsequent application.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.