KALPANA DEB Vs. PREMANKUR DEY ALIAS TUKLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, leading to this revision, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, and Mr. B. K Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1.

(3.) HOWEVER, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. B. R. Dey, learned Senior Counsel, seriously challenges the impugned order so far as the same relates to the refusal of the learned Court below to stay further proceedings of the former suit, which is pending for drawing of. It is contended by Mr. Dey that a person, who suffers from an ex parte decree, which has been fraudulently obtained, can institute a suit seeking declaration that the decree suffers from fraud or he may file an application, under Order IX, Rule 13, seeking to get such a decree set aside. It is further submitted by Mr. Dey that merely because of the fact that such an application under Order IX, Rule 13 has failed, the suit cannot fail and, hence, in the present case, when the suit, seeking declaration that the ex parte decree, obtained in the former suit, suffered from fraud, was still pending, it was incumbent, on the part of the learned Court below not to proceed with the former suit any further and stay further proceedings thereof by taking recourse to its inherent powers as contained in Section 151 of the Code.