Opposite parties sought recall of the High Court's judgment vacating an interim status quo order, alleging it was obtained by fraud regarding existence of a fly ash bricks factory on the suit land. The court found no material showing fraud, held Indian Bank inapplicable, and dismissed the IA.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP NO.21 OF 2024
Bijaya Kumar Das and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Gyanaranjan Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Bidulata Das and others …. Opp. Parties
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ms. Sradha Das, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4) Mr. Shib Shankar Mohanty, Advocate (Caveator)
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
03.09.2025
Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
No.122 of 2015 and Final Decree Proceeding in CS No.57 / 714 of 2004/2002).
4.1. It is his submission that no Fly Ash Bricks Factory was either set up or is running over the land in question. The land is a part of consolidation chaka and an agricultural land. The Fly Ash Bricks Factory referred to by the Petitioners situated 10 KMs away from the land in question over which, the order of status quo was operating. No financial assistance/loan was obtained from any Bank/financial institution, as submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners during adjudication of the CMP. As such, the judgment should be recalled and order of status quo should be restored over the land in question till disposal of the above referred CMA. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph-22 of the case of Indian Bank vrs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.; (1996) 5 SCC 550, which reads as under:
“ 22. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud on court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the court's business.” (emphasis supplied)
4.2. It is thus submitted that by exercising the inherent power under Section 151 CPC, this Court has the discretion to correct the error committed, by recalling the judgment and adjudicate the CMP afresh. He, therefore, submits that an interim application is
Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
maintainable to recall a judgment, which has been obtained by practicing fraud.
5.1. He further submits that learned counsel for Opposite Parties, during adjudication of the CMP, had categorically admitted that a Fly Ash Bricks Factory was existing over the land in question. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties that if the Fly Ash Bricks Factory is allowed to operate, then it will change the nature and character of the suit land. Mr. Baug, learned Senior Advocate also drew attention of the Court to the relevant portion of the judgment in CMP, where this Court recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, i.e., at Paragraph-7 of the judgment, relevant portion of which reads as under:
Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
5.2. He, therefore, submits that the judgment cannot be sought to be recalled by taking a different plea in the IA. He further submits that the Fly Ash Bricks Factory was being run by Diesel Generator set. Very recently, the Petitioners have applied for electricity supply for running of the Fly Ash Bricks Factory. He, therefore, submits that no fraud has been played on Court, as alleged by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
circumstances of the said case. There cannot be any second thought that the Court has the discretion to recall its own judgment if it is established that the judgment sought to be reviewed/recalled was obtained by practicing fraud. In the instant case, the judgment sought to be recalled was passed on contest. It is also not the case of the Opposite Parties that adequate opportunity of hearing was not provided to them in course of hearing of the CMP. It further appears that learned counsel for the Opposite Parties at the time of final adjudication of the CMP stated that the land, over which the Fly Ash Bricks Factory has been established, is an agricultural land included in Consolidation Chaka, which means at the relevant time, a Fly Ash Bricks Factory was admittedly running over the land in question. It is further stated by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties at the same breath that, by running a Fly Ash Bricks Unit, the nature and character of the suit land will be changed. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further strengthens the fact that a Fly Ash Bricks Factory was running over the land in question at the time of adjudication of the CMP. Thus, recall of the judgment on a different plea that no Fly Ash Bricks Factory was/is functioning/running over the land in question cannot be accepted at the moment. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate, however, submitted that by such submission, it was only conveyed that if the Fly Ash Bricks Factory is allowed to operate on the land in question it will change its nature and character. But, no Fly Ash Bricks Factory is/was existing over the land in question. On close reading of the submission made by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties as recorded at paragraph-7 of the judgment, it does not appear so. Further, there is no sufficient material on record either to take a different view as observed in the
Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
judgment sought to be recalled or form a prima facie opinion as alleged by the Opposite Parties. Thus, the ratio decided in the case of Indian Bank (supra) is of no assistance to the Opposite Parties.
Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 16:14:53
yet been condoned although it has been filed since the year 2015. A prayer was made to withdraw the appeal seeking leave to move an application to recall the preliminary decree. The said miscellaneous petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4th August, 2016 (Annexure-1) holding it to be premature, more particularly, when the delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned. Thus, it appears that neither the preliminary decree nor the final decree has yet been set aside by a competent Court of law. Both the preliminary decree and the final decree have been passed giving ample opportunity of hearing to the parties. Definite shares have also been allotted to the parties as per the final decree and the parties are in possession of their respective allotted share. Thus, at this stage, passing of an interim order will definitely unsettle a settled position and thereby prejudice the Petitioners to enjoy their share independently.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Rojalin
Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a judgment obtained allegedly by practising fraud on the court can be recalled by an interlocutory application under Section 151 CPC instead of review?
Whether the applicants made out a prima facie case of fraud warranting recall of the judgment dated 4 March 2024 in CMP No.21 of 2024?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indian Bank vrs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶8
(1996) 5 SCC 550 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bijaya Kumar Das and others
Bidulata Das and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
