PARAMASIVAM PILLAI Vs. PERIYANAYAGATHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question is whether the District Munsif has jurisdiction to review an order made by him under the Village Courts Act (I of 1889). The Act does not provide for review of order passed by the District Munsif on applications made to him under Section 73, and it is argued that he has no power to set aside an order even though made by him under a mistake.

(2.) I am of opinion that every Court has an inherent power to set aside orders passed either under a mistake of the Judge or obtained by a fraud upon the Court. Whatever doubt might exist where the review is sought on grounds outside the record, I do not see any grounds for holding that Courts are bound to allow a decree or order passed under a mistake to stand, Badaricharya v. Ramchandra Gopal Savant 19 B. 113 and Ramsingh v. Babu Kisansingh 19 B. 116 are authorities in point.

(3.) Reference has been made by the appellant s Vakil to Damodara Nadar v. Manicka Vachaka Dasika Pundara Sannadhi 3 Ind. Cas. 463; 33 M. 65; 6 M.L.T. 177; 19 M.L.J. 725; Ranga Row v. Emperor 16 Ind. Cas. 518; 23 M.L.J. 371; 12 M.L.T. 350; 13 Cr. L.J. 710; (1912) M.W.N. 982 and Giddayya v. Jagannatha Rao 21 M. 363. These cases do not touch the question as to the inherent power of the Court to set aside an order passed by it under a mistake. In Damodara Nadar v. Manicka Vachaka Dasika Pandara Sannadhi 3 Ind. Cas. 463; 33 M. 65; 6 M.L.T. 177; 19 M.L.J. 725 the review was not granted owing to any mistake the Collector laboured under where he dismissed the first application. In the judgment Justices Munro and Sankaran Nair cited Badaricharya v. Ramchandra Gopal Savant 19 B. 113 and Ramsingh v. Babu Kisansingh 19 B. 116, but only distinguished the case they were dealing with from the two Bombay cases cited and all that was decided in Giddayya v. Jagannatha Rao 21 M. 363, was that Section 73 of Act I of 1889 did not empower the District Munsif to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Village Court. The case of Ranga Row v. Emperor 16 Ind. Cas. 518; 23 M.L.J. 371; 12 M.L.T. 350; 13 Cr. L.J. 710; (1912) M.W.N. 982 relates to the power of the High Court to restore a criminal revision petition dismissed for default.