The court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to provide relief in cases of fraud and/or abuse of the process of the Court, but the burden of proof lies with the applicant.

JUDGMENT

Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - The applicant (the defendant in C.S. No. 125 of 2014) had filed this application bearing G.A. No. 917 of 2019, principally praying for the recall and/or setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated March 13, 2019 rendered by this Court. The applicant/defendant has filed this application seeking such recall and/or setting aside of such ex-parte decree under O. IX, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC).

2. While the respondent (the plaintiff in C.S. No. 125 of 2014) had made claims that they had made a series of advance payments to the tune of Rs. 15,66,50,000/- on various dates through RTGS and electronic fund transfers in terms of the agreement signed between the applicant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff, the applicant/defendant had only supplied commensurate goods to the respondent/plaintiff valued at Rs. 5,84,10,000/-thereby leaving a balance amount payable to the respondent/plaintiff assessed at Rs. 8,82,40,000/-.

3. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff had instituted C.S. No. 125 of 2014 against the applicant/defendant praying for the grant of a decree to the tune of Rs. 12,00,06,400/-; this decretal amount was evaluated based on the principal outstanding amount payable to the respondent/plaintiff along with interest claimed @ 18% per annum calculated from January 2012 to December 2013.

4. Based on the perusal of the documents on record, the examination of a sole witness on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff and the fact that while the applicant/defendant had entered appearance but had chosen to not file any written statement, I had treated the afore-stated suit as an undefended suit and granted an ex-parte decree dated March 13, 2019, directing the applicant/defendant to ensure the payment of the decretal amount as stated above, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

5. Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the applicant/defendant had averred that the respondent's/plaintiff's contention that an advance payment to the tune of Rs. 15,66,50,000/- on various dates through RTGS and electronic fund transfers was utterly misconceived and in page 14 of such application, conspicuously drew my attention to the fact that a sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores) dated December 10, 2010 by RTGS drawn through the State Bank of India bearing remarks "SBINH10344318588" was never transferred into the account of the applicant/defendant. I have also perused the bank statement, appended as "Annexure-D" to the application by the applicant/defendant which reflects such an averment. Accordingly, the applicant/defendant contended that such a brazen act of misleading the court by the respondent/plaintiff in securing an ex-parte decree against the applicant/defendant, amounted to fraud and abuse of the process of this Court.

6. Based on this revelation, I had directed respondent/plaintiff to justify the purported payment of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- dated December 10, 2010 by RTGS drawn through the State Bank of India bearing remarks "SBINH10344318588", to the applicant/defendant by filing relevant documents as proof of such transaction by an order dated September 16, 2020.

7. Mrs. Manju Bhuteria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, had chosen to rely on the purchase order (appended to this application under consideration) bearing no. PO/SE/02 dated December 10, 2010, wherein the recital "Terms of payment" records a distinct payment to the tune of Rs. Three Crores made to the applicant/defendant. The relevant recital is reproduced hereinbelow: