Back
REKHA BORANA
Asha Ram – Appellant
Versus
Pushkarna Brahmin Bhimji Ka Mohala – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present application has been filed for recalling of the judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Execution Second Appeal No.27/1994.
2. The facts in brief are as under :
(i) In year 1974, a suit for eviction was filed by respondent No.1-Pushkarna Brahmin Bhimji Ka Mohalla Vikas Samiti (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samiti’) against Damodar Das and Udai Kishan being the father and the son. In the said suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for impleadment was preferred on behalf of Asha Ram and Mool Raj, other sons of Damodar Das, with the submission that infact Damodar Das and Udai Kishan are not in possession of the property but it is they i.e. Asha Ram and Mool Raj who are in possession of the property. A submission was made that after marriage of Mool Raj in year 1975, because of some family disputes, Damodar Das and Udai Kishan separated from the family and starting living separately. Hence, the plaintiff, in collusion with Damodar Das and Udai Kishan has malafidely preferred the present suit without impleading them. In the said application, a plea of adverse possession was also raised by the applicants.
(ii) The applicati
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – In exercising powers under Section 151 of CPC, it cannot be said that civil courts can exercise substantive jurisdiction to unsettle already decided issues – Recalling a f....
Judgments obtained through fraud can be recalled; however, mere allegations without proof do not suffice.
The trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a recall application from a non-party after a preliminary decree for partition has been passed, as it becomes functus officio.
A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; failure on any component leads to dismissal.
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.
Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of CPC must not issue notice on application of a third party claiming right in a mechanical manner.
The court affirmed that authorities possess inherent jurisdiction to revoke fraudulent orders even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for review.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
