RATTAN BAI & ANR.versusRAM DASS & ORS.

                    [2012] 1 S.C.R. 855


                     RATTAN BAI & ANR.                         A
                             v.
                     RAM DASS & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 1614 of 2012)
                   FEBRUARY 06, 2012
                                                                B
     [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

      SUIT: Withdrawal of - Suit for specific performance by
respondent 1 to 3 - Application P-2 filed by Advocate on
behalf of respondents that in view of compromise with C
defendants, suit be dismissed - Trial court did not pass any
order - Application (P-4) made by Advocate on behalf of
respondent 1 and 3 that they intended to withdraw the suit -
Respondent 1 gave another affidavit (P-5) that the said suit
was not filed by him - The counsel of the respondents made D
statement that he did not press the applications P-2 and P-4
- In view of the said statement, trial court disposed of the said
two applications and posted the matter for evidence - Revision
petition by appellant dismissed by High Court - On appeal,
held: The issue was not whether the trial court has the power E
 to permit the withdrawal of the applications filed earlier to the
 withdrawal of the suit but whether such power was exercised
in accordance with law and for the purpose for which it is
meant - The mere existence of a power did not justify the
exercise of the power - The fact situation on hand did not F
justify permitting the respondents 1 and 3 to withdraw their
earlier application (P-2) and the statement P-4 as a matter of
 course in the background of the content of the affidavit (P-5)
- The professional conduct of the counsel apart from anything
 else amounted to the abuse of the process of the court - High G
 Court erred in dismissing the revision petition of the
 appellants - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration
 afresh.

     Respondents 1 to 3 instituted a suit for specific
                         855                                    H
    856      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A performance of an agreement of sale of immovable
  property and for the possession of the said property
  against the appellants and others. The appellants filed a
  written statement on 2.12.2006. On 18.12.2007, an
  application (Annexure P-2) was filed on behalf of
B respondents 1 to 3 but signed only by respondents 1 and
  3 alone. The application was accompanied by an affidavit
  of respondent 3, wherein he made a statement that he
  had compromised the suit with defendants and he did not
  wish to continue the suit, and, therefore the same be
C dismissed. Annexure P-3, purport1!dly a vakalatnama in
  favour of one 'S', advocate in the said suit was executed
  on the same day, i.e. 18.12.2007 by the respondents 1 to
  3. However, Annexure P-2, application was signed by an
  advocate by name 'AK' along with respondents 1 and 3.
o The trial court did not pass any order either accepting or
  rejecting the application. On 4.8.2010, a joint statement
  (Annexure P-4) of respondent 1 and the advocate 'AK'
  allegedly representing respondents 1 and 3 was
  recorded by the trial court stating that they intended to
E withdraw the suit.

      On 7.8.2010J respondent 1 gave another affidavit
  (Annexure P-5) before the trial court to the effect that the
  said suit was "&ither filed by him nor the said suit bore
  his signature~. Thereafter, the appellants filed an
F application praying that the suit be dismissed in so far
  as it pertained to respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Another
  application (Annexure P-8) was filed on 16.9.2010
  purportedly on behalf of respondent 1 stating that
  application dated 18.12.2007 (annexure P-2) and the
G statement dated 4.8.2010 (annexure P-4) was wrongly
  submitted by the Advocate 'AK' and, therefore,
  respondent 1 be allowed to withdraw the same and
  pursue the suit.

H         On 1.2.2011, the trial court recorded the statement by
     RATIAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS.              857


one 'MS', Advocate said to be appearing for the               A
respondents that he did not press the application dated
18.12.2007 and 4.8.2010. Thereupon the trial court passed
an order that in view of the statement of the advocate, the
applications dated 18.12.2007 and 4.8.2010 were
disposed of. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants      B
filed revision petition before the High Court. The said
revision was dismissed. The instant appeal was filed
challenging the order of the High Court.

    Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the       C
High Court, the Court

     HELD: 1. The issue was not whether the trial court
has the power to permit the withdrawal of the applications
filed earlier to the withdrawal of the suit but whether such
power was exercised in accordance with law and for the D
purpose for which it is meant. The mere existence of a
power did not justify the exercise of the power. In the
context of the powers of the judicial bodies, all powers
are required to be exercised with a view to secure ends
of justice. The fact situation on hand did not justify E
permitting the respondents 1 and 3 to withdraw their
earlier applications (p.2) dated 18.12.2007 and the
statement of respondent 1 dated 04.08.2010 as a matter
of course in the background of the content of the
affidavit (p.5) dated 7.8.2010. If the content of P.5 is F
proved to be false, appropriate legal action against the
1st respondent must be taken. The professional conduct
of the counsel 'AK' apart from anything else amounts to
the abuse of the process of this Court. The High Court
erred in dismissing the revision of the appellants. [Paras G
23, 25, 26] [864-F-H; 86£-8-F]

     Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. and anr. v. Madhukar Nowlakha &
Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 699: 2006 (2) SCR 761; Rajendra Prasad

                                                              H
    858       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 705:
    2011 (1) SCR 321- Distinguished.

                           Case Law Reference:

          2006 (2) SCR 761          Distinguished      Para 22, 24
B
          2011 (1) SCR 321          Distinguished      Para 22

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1614 of 2012.

C       From the Judgment & Order dated 8.3.2011 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 1075 of
    2011.

         Brijender Chahar, K.R. Anand, Jyoti Chahar, Jagbir S.
    Malik, Vinay Garg for the Appellants.
0
        Uday U. Lalit, S. Padhi, Siddhesh Kotwal, Nirnimesh
    Dube, Sandeep Phogat, Jayant Kumar Mehta for the
    Respondents.

E         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          CHELAMESWAR, J, 1. Leave granted.

         2. This appeal arises out of the final order dated 8th March,
    2011 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision
F   No. 1075 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
    By the said order, the High Court dismissed the Revision filed
    by the appellants herein.

       3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein instituted a Civil Suit No.
G RBT 124/22.05.2006 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division
  (S.D.) Jhajjar, against the two appellants herein and two others.

         4. Respondents 4 to 7 herein are the legal representatives
    of one Kanta Bai, who died during the pendency of the suit and

H
      RATTAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS.                    859
              [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
the said Kanta Bai was one of the other two defendants in the         A
suit.

     5. Unfortunately, copy of the plaint is not available on
record but it appears that the suit was filed for the specific
performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property             B
and for the possession of the said property.

    6. The defendants (appellants herein) contested the suit.
They filed a written statement on 2.12.2006.

      7. On 18.12.2007, an application (Annexure P-2) came to         C
be filed purportedly on behalf of the three plaintiffs (respondents
1 to 3 herein), but signed only by respondents 1 and 3 alone.
The relevant portion reads as follows:-

            "Aforementioned titled case is fixed for 4.8.2010 for
                                                                      0
     defendants evidence and in the afore-stated case the
     applicant plaintiff has compromised with the defendant in
     the suit I have neither any claim against the defendant nor
     I intend to continue the suit.

           Therefore, it is prayed that file be summoned and the      E
     suit on behalf my self plaintiff no.3 be dismissed and file
     be consigned, I will be highly grateful."

     The application was accompanied by an affidavit of the third
respondent herein, wherein he made a statement that he had            F
compromised the suit with defendants and he did not wish to
continue the suit, and, therefore the same be dismissed.

     8. Annexure P-3, purportedly a vakalatnama in favour of one
Shri A.K. Saini, advocate in the above mentioned civil suit, came
to be executed on the same day, i.e. 18.12.2007 by the                G
respondents 1 to 3. However, it must be mentioned herein that
Annexure P-2, application was.signed by an advocate by name
Shri Arun Kumar along with two plaintiffs mentioned above.

     9. The trial court did not pass any order either accepting or    H·
    860       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A   rejecting the application. (Annexure P-2)

       10. On 4.8.2010, a joint statement (Annexure P-4) of first
  respondent and the above-mentioned advocate Shri Arun Kumar
  allegedly representing respondents 1 and 3 herein wasrecorded
B by the Trial Court. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

          "....... stated that we do not intend to continue with the suit
          and withdraw the suit on behalf of plaintiff no.1 and 3."

       11. On 7.8.2010, the first respondent herein gave another
C affidavit (Annexure P-5) before the Trial Court. The relevant
  portion reads as follows:-

               "1. That above noted suit has neither filed by me nor
          above noted suit bears my signatures.
D
                2. That pertaining to the agreement to sell we were
          not having sufficient funds within limitation and my
          compromise with Rattan Bai, Ram Phool took place in the
          year 1999.

E               3. That in the afore-stated case I have neither
          furnished any power of attorney as plaintiff nor any General
          Power of Attorney has been given by me.

               4. That in the afore-stated suit I have falsely been
          impleaded as plaintiff and my signatures are also forged.
F
                 5. That in the aforesaid suit I have neither engaged
          any counsel nor purchased any stamp nor any witness has
          been produced by me on my behalf. The entire proceedings
          in this case carried out on my behalf are false and forged."
G
          12. In the background mentioned above, an application,
    Annexure P-7, came to be filed on behalf of the appellants herein.
    It does not contain any date. But in the opening paragraph of the
    said application it iS stated as follows:-
H
     RATIAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS.                      861
             [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]

    "That the above noted civil bearing no.124 of 2006 is              A
    pending in this Hon'ble Court and the same is fixed for
    hearing on 28.1.201 O.''

     13. The normal inference of the above extracted statement
should be that the application was filed sometime prior to 28th        B
January, 2007. However, the remaining paragraphs referred to
events which took place on 4.8.2010 i.e. the date of joint
statement (exhibit P-4). It is not clear from the record whether
the Annexure P-7 is a true copy of certified copy of the
application filed by the appellant herein. The appellant herein        C
owes an explanation with regard to the discrepancy of the dates
referred to above. Para 4 of the said application reads as
follows:-

            "That the defendants applicants are not alleging any
     malafide intention on the part of the learned presiding officer   D
     inspite of the fact that some undesirable persons are
     claiming that they have approached the learned presiding
     officer and the order for withdrawal and dismissal of the suit
     qua the claim and relief claimed by plaintiffs nos.1 and 3
     will not be passed nor the suit will be dismissed. But it         E
     appears that inadvertently and due to oversight the orders
     for dismissal of the suit filed by plaintiffs nos.1 and 3 has
     not been passed inspite of the statement dated 4.8.2010
     made by their counsel along with Ram Dass plaintiff read
     with the application moved earlier by Jawahar plaintiff No.3.     F

            It is, therefore, prayed necessary orders for dismissal
     of civil suit on behalf of plaintiffs 1 and 3 may kindly be
     passed keeping in view the above said circumstances as
     they have already withdrawn the same and have sought the
     dismissal of their suit.''                                        G

      In substance, praying that the suit be dismissed in so far as
it pertains to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 herein.

     14. As the matter stood, thus, another application (Annexure      H
    862       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A P-8) came to be filed on 16.9.2010 purportedly on behalf of the
  first respondent herein. The substance of the application is that
  annexure P-2 application dated 18.12.2007 and the statement
  dated 4.8.2010 (annexure P-4) had been wrongly submitted by
  the above-mentioned Advocate Shri Arun Kumar and, therefore,
B the first respondent herein be allowed to withdraw the same and
  pursue the suit. The prayer portion is as follows:-

          "lt is therefore prayed that the application dated 4.8.10/
          18.12.07 has been wrongly submitted before the Hon'ble
          Court by Sh. Arun Kumar Advocate. Hence applicant may
c         please be allowed to withdraw the said application dated
          4.8.10/18.12.07 and further be retained as a plaintiff in the
          said suit in the interest of justice."

          15. It is also stated in para 3 of the affidavit as follows:-
D
          "That the applicant never engaged Sh. Arun Kumar as his
          advocate and further never intended to submit such
          applicant. The applicant/plaintiff has not reached to a
          compromise with defendants."
E       16. The said application was supported by an affidavit of
  the first respondent herein wherein the first respondent reiterated
  the various allegations made in the application portions of which
  are extracted earlier. An identical application and affidavit
  (Annexure P-9) also came to be made by the third respondent
F herein on the same date i.e. on 16.9.2010.

         17. Such applications were contested by the appellants
    herein by filing a counter.
       18. On 1.2.2011 the trial court recorded the statement by
G one Shri M.S. Gulia, Advocate said to be appearing for the
  plaintiffs. The statements as follows:-

          " .... Stated that I do not press the application dated
          18.12.2007 and 4.8.2010."
H
     RATTAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS.                        863
             [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
     19. Thereupon the trial court passed an order on the same           A
date which reads as follows:-

    " Sh. M.S. Gulia Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has made a
    statement that he does not press the application order
    dated 18.12.2007 & 4.8.2010, accordingly. Both the                   B
    applications is disposed off accordingly. Now come upon
    8.2.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments."

     20. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein
carried the matter by way of Revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to the Punjab and Haryana High Court by            C
the order under appeal. The said revision was dismissed. The
High Court held -

    "The learned trial Court was well within its jurisdiction to allow
    the withdrawal of application dated 18.12.2007 and                   D
    statement dated 4.8.2010 under its inherent powers and this
    view can be supported by way of the latest judgment of
    Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Prasad Gupta v.
    Prakash Chandra Mishra (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases
    705 ................ "
                                                                         E
    The High Court after examining four paragraphs of the
above-mentioned judgment finally held -

          "In my considered opinion, the impugned order is
    innocuous and no prejudice will be caused to the                     F
    defendants-petitioners as they will have full opportunity to
    present their case before the learned trial Court at the
    relevant stage.

         Keeping in view the facts and circumstances
    discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or             G
    perversity in the impugned order dated 1.2.2011 (P .16)
    passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jhajjar
    warranting interference under Article 227 of the
    Constitution."
                                                                         H
    864      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 1 S.C.R.

A       21. Learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr. Brijender
  Chahar argued that the High Court erred in dismissing the
  Revision. He further submitted that the question is not whether
  the trial Court had the inherent power to permit the respondent-
  plaintiffs to go back on their earlier "applications" dated 4.8.2010
B and 18.12.2007 but in the circumstances of the case particularly
  in the background of the reasons given in the affidavit dated
  7.8.2010 (p.5) wherein the 1st respondent herein made a
  categoric allegation that he had been "falsely impleaded as a
  plaintiff' and his signatures are "forged" etc. whether the inherent
c power of the Court was exercised in accordance with the well
  established principles of law.

         22. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the
   respondent Mr. Uday U. Lalit argued that even in cases where
   an application for withdrawal of the suit is allowed, it is held by
 D this Court that nothing prevents the plaintiffs to go back upon the
   withdrawal. Therefore, nothing in law prevents the respondents/
   plaintiffs to withdraw their applications for the withdrawal of the
   suit. The learned counsel relied upon Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. and
   anr. Vs. Madhukar Nowlakha & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 699 and
 E Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors.,
   (2011) 2 sec 705 in support of his submissions.

         23. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
   appellant, the issue is not whether the trial court has the power
 F to permit the withdrawal of the applications filed earlier to the
   withdrawal of the suit but whether such powers was exercised
   in accordance with law and for the purpose for which it is meant.
   The mere existence of a power does not justify the exercise of
   the power. In the context of the powers of the judicial bodies, all
 G powers are required to be exercised with a view to secure ends
   of justice. In neither of the above-mentioned two cases this Court
   had an occasion to examine whether the inherent power of the
   Civil Court under Section 151 CPC was properly exercised. In
   the 1st case, the suit had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs and
   the plaintiffs subsequently sought to go back upon the withdrawal
.H
      RATTAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS.                      865
              [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
and reopen the suits on the ground that they were induced to             A
withdraw the suit on a misrepresentation made by the
defendants. In the 2nd case, the plaintiff "changed his mind" after
filing the applications for withdrawal of the suit and sought to
withdraw the said application even before a formal orde~
permitting the withdrawal was passed the Court. The argument             B
in both the cases was the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to
permit the course of action undertaken by the plaintiffs. This
Court only laid down the principle that Section 151 of CPC
 recognises* the existence of ample power on the Civil Court to
 permit the plaintiffs to pursue the course of action undertaken         c
 by them.

     24. In Jet Ply Wood (supra), the trial Court rejected the
application of the plaintiffs "recalling the order by which the suit
had been permitted to be withdrawn". The High Court recalled
the order and restored the suit. Dealing with the case, this Court       D
held at para 24 -

     " ................... which indicates that the court did not find
     any scope to exercise its inherent powers under Section
     151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order          E
     passed by it earlier. In the circumstances set out in the order
     of 24 .. 2004, the learned trial court felt that no case had been
     made out to recall the order which had been made at the
     instance of the plaintiff himself. It was, therefore, not a
     question of lack of jurisdiction but the conscious decision         F
     of the court not to exercise such jurisdiction in favour of the
     plaintiff."

This Court did not examine the question whether "the conscious
decision of the Court not to exercise such jurisdiction" was
justified. This Court only held that the High Court's decision to        G
reverse the trial Court's order - not to permit the recall of the
earlier order permitting the withdrawal of the suit - does not call
for interference.

            "27. We are of the view that the law having been             H
    866        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A          correctly stated in the aforesaid case, the learned Sing!
           Judge of the Calcutta High Court in making an order on the
           same lines did not commit any error of jurisdiction which
           calls for any interference in these appeals."

        25. But the fact situation on hand does not, in our opinion,
8
  justify permitting the respondents 1 and 3 to withdraw their earlier
  applications (p.2) dated 18.12.2007 and the statement of the 1st
  respondent dated 04.08.2010 as a matter of course in the
  background of the content of the affidavit (p.5) dated 7.8.2010.
  If the content of p.5 is proved to be false, there is no validly
C constituted suit at least on behalf of the 1st respondent. Secondly,
  the professional conduct of the counsel Mr. Arun Kumar may
  require an examination in the interest of the purity of a justice
  delivery system. If the content of P.5 is proved to be false,
  appropriate legal action against the 1st respondent must be
D taken. His conduct apart from anything else amounts to the abuse
  of the process of this Court.

        26. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the High
    Court erred in dismissing the revision of the appellants herein.
E
       27. We allow the appeal and remit the matter to the High
  Court for an examination of the factors indicated above and any
  other relevant factor which the High Court may deem
  appropriate, if necessary even by taking evidenca, and pass
  appropriate orders in accordance with law. The trial of the suit
F shall stand stayed until the High Court takes a final decision as
  indicated above.

    D.G.                                           Appeal allowed.