NINGAMMA Vs. IRAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 5/1/2017 passed on I.A. No. 9 by the learned Sr. Civil Judge at Koppal, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners for recall and review of the earlier order passed on I.A. Nos.1 to 5 dtd. 9/4/2010 was rejected by the Reference Court.

(2.) The material on record discloses that in the proceedings in LAC No. 17/2008 on the file of the Reference Court the petitioners herein are the claimants. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents No.1 to 5 filed applications I.A. Nos.1 to 5under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment. The said applications were allowed by the Reference Court vide order dtd. 9/4/2010. Subsequently, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 9 under Sec. 151 CPC seeking recall/ review of the said order on the ground that it was not possible to file objections to I.A. Nos.1 to 5 since same were not received by them or to their counsel. It was also contended that the respondents No.1 to 5 were not proper or necessary parties to the proceedings and as such the order allowing I.A. Nos.1 to 5 deserves to be recalled and the said application I.A. No. 9 deserves to be allowed after giving one more opportunity to the petitioner. The said application I.A. No. 9 having been opposed by the respondents No.1 to 5, the trial Court proceeded to reject the same by passing the impugned order which is appealed before this Court.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial Court will clearly indicate that the sole ground on which the trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 9 is that the Court does not have power to review its own order on merits and that there was mistake committed in the order. The Reference Court has failed to consider and appreciate the undisputed fact that the order allowing I.A. Nos.1 to 5 was passed in the absence of the petitioners who had not filed any objections to the same as can be seen in the order dtd. 9/4/2010 on I.A. Nos.1 to 5. The trial Court has also failed to appreciate that u/S 151 CPC, the Reference Court possessed sufficient and inherent power to recall its own order in the interest of doing substantial justice and to provide an opportunity to the party to contest/ defend the claim of the opposite side.