Chiyoda Corporation vs National Fertiliser Ltd. And ...
1992 Latest Caselaw 113 Del

ORDER

1. This is an application by the plaintiff under S. 152 of the Civil P. C. for recalling and modifying the judgment and order dt. Nov. 22, 1991 passed by this Court.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff through the present application wants that the Suit No. 910 of 1989 which was dismissed against defendant No. 1 on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiff be restored to its original number and be allowed to be proceeded with against defendant No. 1.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff at sufficient length and have very carefully examined the facts of the present case and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that Suit No. 910/89 was filed by the plaintiff against the two defendants i.e. National Fertilizer Ltd., defendant No. 1, and SOIL India Ltd., defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 neither put in appearance nor applied for leave to defend despite sufficient service. Hence, the plaintiff became entitled to a decree under 0. 37, R. 3, CPC against them. Consequently, the suit was decreed against defendant No. 2. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff while the judgment in the said suit was being dictated made a statement that the plaintiff did not want to proceed against defendant No. 1. It was on the basis of the said statement that the suit against defendant No. 1 was dismissed.

5. Now, the counsel for the plaintiff through the present application under disposal wants the Court to set aside that order of dismissal and to restore the suit to its original number on the ground that the said statement was made inadvertently and under a mistake. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently contended that the Court has got sufficient and ample powers to do so because the aforesaid statement was made by the learned counsel inadvertently. The learned counsel in support of his argument has led me through two authorities, i.e. Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag, and Master Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, . I have very carefully gone through the said authorities. The said authorities are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said authorities are applicable to those discerning few cases where the orders are passed on account of accidental slip or omission and as such, the same can be corrected. It is a well-known principle of civil jurisprudence that the Court after passing a judgment and decree becomes functus officio and has" got no power to review and revive its own judgment. I do not see any force in the present application and the same is hereby rejected.

6. Application rejected.