JUDGMENT : Sikri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court, dated December 4, 1963, allowing a revision under Section 115. Civil Procedure Code, against the order of the Munsif, First Court, Chapra dated January 10, 1963 and directing that the orders dated April 16, 1962. and May 21, 1962, passed by him be recalled, thereby setting aside the sale. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.P. Jha, submitted three propositions before us: (1) That on the facts the High Court had no jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the orders; (2) That a petition under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was not maintainable in law for the reason that the Court had become functus officio; and (3) That, as the sale had become absolute under, Order 21, Rule 77 (2), the sale could be set aside only under Order 21, Rule 78 , Civil Procedure Code, and Order 21, Rule 58 did not apply to the facts of the case because admittedly the petition was filed by respondent No. 1 who had been held to be the judgment-debtor. 3. In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary to set out the facts out of which this appeal arises, M/s. Chapra Electric Supply Works, respondent No 2 before us brought a money suit against Durga Talkies and Daonandan Singh, proprietor of Durga Talkies, respondent No. 1 before us for realisation of the electricity dues, The suit was decreed. In execution of this decree (Execution Case No, 117 of 1960) some movable machinery of the cinema was sold on May 21, 1962, and was purchased by Baidyanath Dubey, appellant before us for Rs.1018/-, and it is this sale which has been set aside by the High Court. 4. It is necessary here to set out the various steps leading to the sale. On November 7, 1960, respondent No. 1 -hereinafter referred to as the judgment debtor filed a petition praying for stay of the issue of attachment on the ground that the execution case had not been properly filed and the talkies belonged-to Deonandan Singh son of Bhujhawan Singh and not Deonandan Singh son of Bhagwan Singh. This petition was rejected on January 12, 1961. The attachment order was issued on January 25, 1961 returnable by February 18, 1961. This petition was rejected on January 12, 1961. The attachment order was issued on January 25, 1961 returnable by February 18, 1961. On December 16, 1961, the judgment debtor filed a miscellaneous case (No. 211 of 1961) under Order 21, Rule 58 . By March 30, 1962, attachment had not been made. It was ordered to be re-issued fixing April 16, 1962 for return. On April 16, 1962, the following order was passed : “6-4-1962, Both parties file hazri, Applicant files a petition prays to stay attachment till the disposal of Misc. case O, P. (Opposite Party) has filed rejoinder of the same. P.O. (Presiding Officer) has been posted as Additional Subordinate Judge and no permanent P.O. has been posted in his place. To 5-5-1962 for disposal Both the petitions will be heard on that date." 5. On April 16,1962, the following order was recorded : "16-4-1962. S.R. (Service Report) of attachment received, it has been effected. Nazir has attached the moveable property and kept the attached machines in custody of Sri Ganga pd, Sinha, husband of Smt. Tara Sinha. Managing Partner, who has been granted receipt of the same as it was fixed and it was difficult to bring them in Court, Requisites for issue of S P (Sale proclamation) under Order 21, Rule 6 , Civil Procedure Code filed and fee deposited but petition of encumbrance not filed.” Order 6. Issue S.P. fixing 2-5-1962 for sale at 8 a.m., at the spot on fitness cost deputation of peon at once. 7. The order passed on May 2, 1962, reads: "2-5-1962 Petition of encumbrance filed. Issue S.P. fixing 18-5-1962 for sale at 8 a.m., as ordered at once notifying encumbrance. Let the sale be published in 'Nerad’ Amount Previous amount 977.92 Further Ex. case 10.80 Total 988.72" 8. On May 5, 1962, following two orders were passed: "69, 5-5-62, Parties file Hazire. P.O. has not joined. To 2-6-1962 for disposal. 70. Do J, Dr. files a petition that therein that he has filed Misc. Case No. 2 1/61 under Order 21, Rule 58 . Civil Procedure Code which is pending. He, further, states that he had filed a petition on 6-1-1962 for stay of attachment of the Misc. Cate. It is therefore to withdraw the order of attachment of the Machinery till the disposal of Misc, Case 117/61. Case No. 2 1/61 under Order 21, Rule 58 . Civil Procedure Code which is pending. He, further, states that he had filed a petition on 6-1-1962 for stay of attachment of the Misc. Cate. It is therefore to withdraw the order of attachment of the Machinery till the disposal of Misc, Case 117/61. Whether copy of petition has been served otherwise lawyer not petition has been moved.” Order 9. Put up when moved and in the meantime copy of petition be served. On May 21, 1962, the following order is recorded; "21-5-1962, Sale held J. Dr’s property put to sale and purchased by one Baidyanath Dubey S/o Sri Lal Ji pd. Dwevedi of Chaku, P.S. Darsuli at nresent Salempur bids Rs. 1018/- besides encumbrance of Rs. 10,000/-. Challan to deposit earnest money filed. Issue challan and put up on 28-5-1962 for further orders, Earnest money deposited," 10. The order passed on May 28, 1962, reads: "28-5-1962, Earnest money deposited but challan not received. Await challan. Put up on 4-6-1962 for payment of balance of sale money." 11. On May 31, 1962, it is recorded that "auction purchaser files challan to deposit balance of sale money, issue challan and put up on the date fixed." On June 2, 1962, the following order is recorded in Miscellaneous Case No, 211/61: "Both parties file hazri, P O has not joined, to 23-6-1962." 12. On June 23, 1962, following order was passed in Miscellaneous Case No, 11/61: "Both parties file hazaries. Court busy with hearing Misc, Case No, 164/60, To 21-7-1962, for disposal." 13. It appears that on June 26, 1962, the judgment-debtor inspected the records and, according to him this was the first time that he became aware of what had happened. He filed an application under section 151 Civil Procedure Code, on June 29, 1962, praying that the sale of the cinema machinery held on May 21, 1962. in execution Case No. 117 of 1960, be set aside. Among other allegations, he alleged in para 12, as follows; "That the applicant has learnt that Shri Badari Narain Sinha, Advocate. Chapra, who is the receiver appointed by the Court on behalf of the decree-holder opposite party is a friend and colleague of Shri Ganga Pd., Sinha, Adovocate, Chapra, and of Shri Laliee Pd. Among other allegations, he alleged in para 12, as follows; "That the applicant has learnt that Shri Badari Narain Sinha, Advocate. Chapra, who is the receiver appointed by the Court on behalf of the decree-holder opposite party is a friend and colleague of Shri Ganga Pd., Sinha, Adovocate, Chapra, and of Shri Laliee Pd. Dwivedi pleader, Chapra, and they have in combination with one another manipulated the secret sale of the valuable machineries of the applicant contray to law and without any jurisdiction for their own mutual gain and in order to cause irreparable injury and loss to the applicant in league and collusion with the Naib Nazir and the process servers of the processes in the execution case." 14. By order dated January 10,1963, the Munsif rejacted this application on the ground that the petition under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, was not maintainable. He held that "the sale being of moveable property and it being attacked on the ground of irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, the present case will come within the purview of Order 21, Rule 78 Civil Procedure Code. The remedy of the applicant, if any, lies in filing a suit and not in an application under section 151. Civil Procedure Code.” He further held that "there has been no abuse of the processes of the Court and there is no justification for invoking the inherent powers of the Court under section 151, Civil Procedure Code in this case." 15. The High Court, after stating the facts, came to the following conclusion; "I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that fraud has been practised on Court whoever may be responsible for that fraud and it has been so done in collusion with or in the interest of the parties concerned. The High Court, after stating the facts, came to the following conclusion; "I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that fraud has been practised on Court whoever may be responsible for that fraud and it has been so done in collusion with or in the interest of the parties concerned. On the other hand, the petitioner was anxious to save the property from attachment and sale until the disposal of the miscellaneous case filed under Order 21, Rule 58 and inspite of his anxiety the orders passed on his petitions were postponing them from time to time on the ground that no officer as permanent presiding officer of Munsif 1st Court had been posted, on the other, several orders as I have shown above, were recorded and got passed under the signature and sometimes in the handwriting of the officer who was in charge of this Court, which led to the holding of the sale on 21-5-1962 before the disposal of the Miscellaneous case filed under Order 21, Rule 58 of C.P.C." 16. The High Court further held that the mandatory provisions of Order 21, Rule 77 had not been complied with. It further held that in the case of moveable property sale could not take place until the disposal of Miscellaneous Case No, 211 of 1961 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court concluded: "Those orders were got passed or snatched from Shri Dasrathi Bandopadhya by practising fraud on him. He was kept in dark about the real position in the execution case and it seems was misled by the Bench clerk to pass these order in collusion with or in the interest of opposite parties and the petitioner’s partner", 17. The High Court further observed; "I would only observe that it was the duty of the officer also to exercise a bit more care while signing so many orders in the execution case which was pending in Munsif 1st Court of which he was in charge for such a long time. It is a well-settled principle of law that a Court has inherent power to recall its own order or even to set aside sale in a situation like this " 18. It is a well-settled principle of law that a Court has inherent power to recall its own order or even to set aside sale in a situation like this " 18. It cannot be doubted that a Court has inherent powers to recall orders obtained by practising fraud on it, at the instance of a party to the proceedings. There is no question of the Court being functus officio because the Court retains the jurisdiction to recall such orders. The learned counsel referred to us the following observations made by Shah, J, ,in the dissenting judgment, in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rat Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 527. "Inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex debtio justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by section 151 of the Code, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive " 19. But the majority in that case seems to have held otherwise for Raghubar Dayal J, observed: "The section (section 151) itself says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. In the face of such a clear statement it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Code control the inherent power by limiting it or otherwise affecting it. The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do Justice between the parties before it, "Further, when the Code itself recognizes the existence of the inherent power of the Court there is no question of implying any powers outside the limits of the Code." 20. But here no question of nullifying any provisions of the Code arises. Order 21, Rule 78 on which reliance was placed is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, in cases like the present where it is alleged that orders have been obtained by fraud practised on the Court. It is not a case of any irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. Order 21, Rule 78 on which reliance was placed is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, in cases like the present where it is alleged that orders have been obtained by fraud practised on the Court. It is not a case of any irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. It has not been shown which other express provision or the Code would be nullified if the impugned orders are recalled by the Court under section 151. 21. It seems to us however that the High Court should have ramanded the case, to the Munsif , First Court Chapra, for trial of the issue whether fraud had been Practised on the Court. The Munsif was of the view that no application lay under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and therefore did not carefully go in to the question. No evidence seems to have been led before the Munsif on this issue and it does not appear whether any explanation was called by the Court from the Bench Clerk. As the Privy Council observed in Satis Chandra Chatterji v. Kumar Satish Kantha Roy, A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 73 charges of fraud and collusion like those contained in the plaint in this case must, no doubt, be proved by those who make them- proved by established facts or inferences legitimately drawn from those facts taken together as a whole. Suspicions and surmises and conjecture are not permissible substitutes for those facts or those inferences, but that by no means requires that every puzzling artifice or contrivance resorted to by one accused of fraud must necessarily be completely unravelled and cleared up and made plain before a verdict can be properly found against him if this were not so, many a clever and dexterous knave would escape. 22. It seems to us that if a plausible allegation is made against an officer of the Court, with reference to proceedings in Court, the Court, should carefully enquire into the allegations, in this case no enquiry whatever seems to have been made by the Court. Further, the counsel on both sides have not been able to explain to us the significance of some of the expressions used in the orders reproduced above or the practice prevailing in that Court. Further, the counsel on both sides have not been able to explain to us the significance of some of the expressions used in the orders reproduced above or the practice prevailing in that Court. The High Court was perhaps justified in drawing an inference from the orders that fraud had been practised upon the Court but it would have been better if these inferences had been drawn after the parties had been given opportunity to place all the material and explained the circumstances which tended to establish the commission of fraud by the Bench Clerk. 23. Only the first point remains, it seems to us that the High Court was entitle to interfere with the order of the Munsif, dated January 10, 1963; because he had refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in ,him. 24. In the result we consider that the orders of the High Court should be set aide and the case remanded to the Munsif to go into the question whether the impugned orders were obtained from the Court as a result of fraud practised on it, and decide the case in accordance with law. The Munsif, will afford opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the above point. 25. The case is accordingly remanded to the Court of Munsif, First Court Chapra. In the circumstances the costs in the appeal will be costs in the cause. Case Remanded.