ORDER: This is an application to revise the order dated 31st December, 1966 of the Munsiff, Jammu, holding the application, made before him under Section 151, Civil P. C. by Vinod Kumar respondent No. 2 herein, for restoration of possession of the shop mentioned in the application (on the ground that it was not the shop for which the decree for ejectment against respondent No. 1 had been passed) to be maintainable.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose o$ this petition are:-

On the 28th April, 1966, an exparte decree for ejectment from a shop situate on B. C. Road, Jammu, was passed in favour of the petitioner against Bodh Raj respondent No. 1. On the execution of this decree being taken out, a warrant for eviction of the judgment-debtor and delivery to the decree-holder of the possession of the shop for which decree had been passed was issued and the Nazir of the .Court was deputed by the Munsiff to deliver possession of the said shop to the decree-holder, On the Nazir making a report that possession of the shop was duly delivered on 2-8-1966 on the Nishandehi of Charanjit Lal, the father of the petitioner decree-holder, the execution application was consigned to the records in full satisfaction of the decree, On the 27th September 1966, the respondent No. 2 made an application before the Munsiff Jammu stating that he had been wrongfully and fraudulently deprived in his absence of possession of the shop which had been got on rent from Rajinder Kumar and in which he was carrying on the business of spare parts, that the shop of which possession had been taken away from him by the Nazir of the Court was not the shop for which decree had been passed and praying that mistake be rectified and possession 01 the shop be restored to him.

3. The application was resisted by the petitioner-decree-holder contending inter alia that the decree had been satisfied, that the Court had become functus officio, that the application under Section 151, Civil P. C, was not maintainable and that a separate suit ought to have been brought by respondent No. 2 for possession of the shop.

4. The learned Munsiff after considering the objections and hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties held that the application was maintainable and if after summary inquiry it was found that possession of a shop other than the one for which decree had been passed had been delivered action under Section 151, Civil P. C., could be made. With these findings, he called upon the respondent No. 2 to lead evidence in support of his application,

6. Bakshi Ishwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing in support of the revision application has contended that the Munsiff has grossly erred and exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that the application under Section 151, Civil P. C., was maintainable.

6. Mr. V. S. Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has on the other hand, contended that Section 151, Civil P. C. covered the case and no interference was called for with the order of the Munsiff Jammu.

7. After careful consideration of the matter and examination of the law bearing on the matter, I am of opinion that Section 151, Civil P. C., which is based on the principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit- an act of the Court shall prejudice no person, covers all such cases where the act of the Court or any of its officers has resulted some injury to a party or where there has been an abuse of the process of the Court.

I am fortified in this view by a judgment of Privy Council in Rodger v. Comptoir DEscompte De Paris, (1870) 3 PC 465 = 7 Moo PC (NS) 314, where it was held that it is the duly of the Court to take care that no act of the Court in the course of whole proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the Court. Further support for this view is also available from another authority reported in AIR 1937 Mad 694, where it was held that Section 151, Civil P. C. could be utilized where through a mistake or a material irregularity of the Court, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document