LAWS(PVC)-1925-8-189

SADASHIO RAO Vs. UMAJI

Decided On August 07, 1925
Sadashio Rao Appellant
V/S
Umaji Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code makes no law; it merely reminds Judges of what they ought to know already, that if they find the ordinary rules of procedure resulting in injustice in any case, whether by the force of circumstances or through the attempts of a party to an unfair advantage of them those rules can be broken. What the section does not say, perhaps because it is even more obvious than what it does is that in the circumstances stated the Court is bound to break those rules. But the circumstances are that such a course-is 'necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court," that is to say, that those ends cannot be attained or that abuse cannot be prevented without breaking the rules.

(2.) IN this case Shankar Rao, father of Sadashio Rao, who called on the lower-Court to break the ordinary rules of procedure on his behalf and has now applied for revision of that Court's refusal to do so, obtained a preliminary decree for sale on a mortgage on the 12th of August 1922. On the 16th of August, 1923 Shankar Rao's agent admitted in Court that the decree had been completely satisfied by a payment of money and delivery of grain, and full satisfaction of the decree was recorded. On the 22nd of September 1924 Sadashio Rao put in an application praying that his name might be substituted as decree-holder for that of his father, who was dead, and that the order recording the adjustment of the decree might be set aside because it had been obtained by fraud on an untrue statement made by his father's agent without his father's knowledge.

(3.) NOW it is admitted that he could file a suit for the cancellation of the order as obtained by fraud or apply for a review of it, and that possibly there are even other remedies open to him. Each of these is perhaps a little more costly and troublesome than the extraordinary remedy for which he asks, but certainly cannot be said to be unreasonably so. The Court was therefore not only justified in refusing to break the rules it ordinarily has to follow, but was bound to do so. The application for revision is accordingly rejected. The parties have agreed that no order in respect of the costs of these proceedings need be passed.