vil Appeal Nos
18083 of 1985
From the Judgment and Order dated 1291983 of the Rajasthan High Court in DB Civil Spl
Appeal Nos
35 of 1982 76 268 and 270 of 1983
SK Bagga for the Appellants
BD Sharma for the Respondents
The Order of the Court was delivered by 247 VENKATARAMIAH CJ
In these appeals the appellants have questioned the validity of Section 15 as amended of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973
It is not disputed that this Act was enacted by the Rajasthan Legislature for bringing about Agrarian Re forms in the State of Rajasthan
The validity of some of the provisions of the Act came up for consideration before this Court in Bansidhar vs State of Rajasthan  before a Constitution Bench of this Court and this Court made declaration that the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 was a legislation which was made for the purpose of bringing out Agrarian Reform
In view of the above finding it is clear that the provisions including section 15 as amended contained therein are protected by Article 31A1a of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that some of these provisions contravened Articles 14 and 19
The Grounds urged in respect of the appeal are that Section 15 as amended in question was violative of Article 14
Since the provisions of the Act as already stated are protected by Article 31A1a the attack does not sur vive
The High Court was therefore right in upholding the validity of Section 15 of the Act
Therefore there is no ground to interfere with the Judgment of the High Court
These appeals fail and are dismissed
Interim orders passed if any in these cases stand vacated
TNA Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The appellant a registered society instituted a suit through its Secretary in respect of an immovable property
Afterwards the election of the office bearers for the Society was held and one X  claiming to be the Secretary of the Society filed an application for withdrawing the suit and the trial court allowed the same
In the subsequent election one Y  was elected as Secretary and he filed an application for recalling the order of withdrawal and for restoring the suit
The applica tion was contested and the trial court rejected the applica tion
The appellant challenged the order before the High Court by way of a petition under section 115 CPC
The High Court observed that the trial court had committed several serious errors in deciding the question as to who was the elected Secretary of the Society on the relevant date in favour of the respondent but held that the mistake could not be corrected
This appeal by special leave is against the High Court s judgment
On behalf of the appellant it was argued that the trial court failed to appreciate that X  was not the elect ed Secretary of the Society as was held by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and that X  did not also succeed before the High Court in this regard
And hence he was not competent to withdraw the suit
It has been contended that the error committed by the trial court ought to have been rectified by the High Court
234 The respondents argued that the only remedy available to the appellant was to file a fresh suit
It was contended that the High court rightly did not decide the dispute finally regarding election of X  and left it to be settled by the Civil Court
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the trial court this Court HELD 11 The position is well established that a court has inherent power to correct its own proceedings when it is satisfied that in passing a particular order it was misled by one of the parties
237D 12 If a party makes an application before the Court for setting aside the decree on the ground that he did not give his consent the court has the power and duty to investigate the matter and to set aside the decree if it is satisfied that the consent as a fact was lacking and the court was induced to pass the decree on a fradulent representation made to it that the party had actually consented to it
However if the case of the party challenging the decree is that he was in fact a party to the compromise petition filed in the case but his consent had been procured by fraud the court cannot investigate the matter in the exercise of its inherent power and the only remedy to the party is to institute a suit
1237F G 13 So far as the finding of the trial court that X was the elected Secretary of the appellant Society with authori ty to withdraw the suit is concerned the same suffers from several errors and requires reconsideration
Even in the view of the High Court that is the position but it declined to exercise its revisional power on the assumption that it had no jurisdiction to do so
The courts below were there fore not right in holding that the application of the appellant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court was not maintainable
If the appellant s case is factually correct that X was not its elected Secretary and was there fore not authorised to withdraw the suit the prayer for withdrawing the suit was not made on behalf of the appellant at all and the impugned order was passed as a result of the court being misled
Such an order cannot bind the appellant and has to be vacated
High Court should have intervened in its revisional power on the ground that the trial court had failed to exercise ajurisdiction vested in it by law
238F G D E Sadho Saran Rai and Ors
vs Anant Rai and Ors
 AIR 1923 Patna 483 Vilakathala Raman vs Vayalil Pachu 27 Madras Law Journal Reports 172 and Basangowda Hanmantgowda Patil and Anr
vs 235 Churchugirigowda Yogangowda and Anr ILR 34 Bombay 408 approved