UTTAR PRADESH STATE Vs. SHIB SARAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal from order by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) It appears that a suit was filed against the Uttar Pradesh Government by one Shib Saran Agarwal. That suit was decreed ex parte. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree and for restoring the suit was made by the Uttar Pradesh Government. The application was made beyond 90 days of the date of the decree, which is the period of limitation for making an application to set aside an ex parte decree. But the applicant made an allegation of fraud against himself by the opposite party and thus tried to save limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The learned court below went into the question of fraud and gave a finding that no fraud had been proved. It, therefore, held that the restoration application was barred by limitation and had to be dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh tried to argue before us, without much conviction, that fraud had been established. But, for the reasons given by the learned Judge, we are convinced that fraud was not established in this case. We have ourselves perused the evidence and we feel that the finding of the learned Judge is wholly justified. Since learned counsel was not able to establish fraud upon the evidence and get over the difficulty of limitation, he contended that the court below could have set aside the ex parte decree in any case, under its inherent powers and he asked that the ex parte decree should be set aside under the Court's inherent powers.