The inherent powers of a civil court under Section 151 CPC can be exercised for the benefit of litigants when no specific remedy is provided.

Order

10/01/2024

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of UP and Ors. Vs. Roshan Singh (D) by LRs and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 1190 submitted that learned trial court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while interpretating the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by this Hon’ble Court while allowing restoration of civil suit No. 53/2007. He submitted that this Hon’ble Court has not restored civil suit No. 100/2006 filed by respondent Raghunandan. He further submitted that no application was preferred by respondent Raghunandan for restoration of civil suit No. 100/2006, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro on 19.09.2007. He further submitted that a civil court is not entitled to grant a remedy under Section 151 CPC, which was specifically refused by a superior court. At last, he submitted that where there is specific provisions then power under Section 151 CPC cannot be used to grant relief.

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that his application No. 5826 was also allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.03.2010. He also submitted that civil suit No. 100/2006 was tagged and consolidated with civil suit No. 53/2007 and a common order was passed by trial court, therefore, whatever be the fate of final order, same would apply to all further proceedings as well.

In case of State of UP and Ors. Vs. Raghunandan and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 463 Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting the inherent powers of civil court under Section 151 CPC has laid down that the inherent powers can be exercised for the benefit of litigant who has option to avail remedy under relevant statute.

On perusal of record, the facts are quite clear that for a common suit property, two civil suits No. 100/2006 and 53/2007 were filed before the civil court and same were consolidated but on an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, both suits were dismissed. Aggrieved from aforesaid, the matter was agitated upto the Supreme Court and finally disposed of by Hon’ble Supreme Court as Vijay Kumar Sharma @ Manju Vs. Raghunandan Sharma @ Baburam and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.89/2010), whereby after allowing the appeal, the impugned order for appointment of Arbitrator was set aside.

Subsequent to aforesaid, this Court on 12.03.2010 allowed two applications, one filed by Vijay Kumar as application No. 5690 dated 04.03.2010 and by respondent as application No. 5826 dated 05.03.2010 but in operative portion, the court has directed for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2007 passed in civil suit No. 53/2007 and directed the trial court to restore aforesaid civil suit to its original number. A copy of order clearly indicated that the application preferred by both the parties were allowed meaning thereby a civil suit, consolidated with civil suit No. 53/2007 was also restored to its original number for adjudication on merits in accordance with law, therefore learned trial court has not committed any error while allowing the application of restoration in civil suit No. 100/2006.

As regard to Section 151 CPC is concerned, no specific remedy is preferred for restoration except as provided under CPC. The only remedy was to burden this court by filing a review petition but same can only be availed if learned trial court has not considered the intent of the order passed by this court, therefore the judgment as cited by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable.

This petition is further filed on frivolous and vexatious grounds, hence same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.