VILAKATHALA RAMAN Vs. VAYALIL PACHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition before us statedly asks this Court to interfere only with the Lower Court s order, dated the 27th February 1912. It, however, also contains a prayer for the setting aside of an order directing the petitioner s prosecution, which was, it appears actually passed on the 29th February 1912. We cannot, deal with the order of the 29th February 1912 on this petition.

(2.) The order of the 27th February 1912 was one by the District Munsif of Chowghat vacating his previous order recording satisfaction of a decree on the ground that the latter was obtained by the petitioner s gross fraud on his Court. This petition is argued on the ground that the District Munsif had no power to pass such an order.

(3.) We should be prepared to sustain the order, as passed under either Section 47 or Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code. But it is sufficient that it was passed in the exercise of the Courts inherent power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to vacate an order obtained by manifest fraud on it. The propriety of such exercise was recognised in Paranjpe v. Kanade (1882) I.L.R. 6 B. 148 and Subbaji Rau v. Srinivasa Rau and Pulliah (1880) I.L.R. 2 M. 264 and this is sufficient ground for our refusal to interfere.