JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Venu Gopal, Advocate, holding brief of Shri B.N. Tiwari and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar dated 28th January, 2012, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 151 C.P.C. has been allowed and the permission granted on 27.4.2011, under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, to dispose off the trust property, has been recalled. 2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition is that there exist a religious trust known as Radha Krishan ji Maharaj Virajman Trust, which owns certain properties. An application by the Secretary of the trust was filed under Section 34 of Indian Trust Act, seeking permission of the Court to permit disposal of the properties of the trust, which was allowed on 27th of April, 2011, permitting sale of House No. 55/82, 55/89 and 55/91, Nayaganj, Kanpur Nagar for an amount not less than Rs. 27 lacs. 3. Subsequently, an application was filed by the respondent No. 2, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the allegation that proceedings under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been initiated in respect of same trust property and an order of injunction had been passed by the Civil Court on 5th September, 2006, restraining transfer of the trust properties in question. This order was also confirmed on 1.5.2009. However, injunction order dated 5.9.2006 as confirmed on 1.5.2009, were suppressed in the application filed under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, and consequently, order dated 27.4.2011 was passed in teeth of the injunction already granted and operating in respect of the trust property in question, which was impermissible in law. 4. The Court concerned, which was assigned jurisdiction of such matters, proceeded to examine the application and having noticed the fact that an injunction in respect of such property was already operating, proceeded to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and recalled order dated 27th April, 2011, vide its order dated 28.1.2012 and the proceedings initiated under Section 34 of Indian Trust Act were restored. Aggrieved by the order dated 28th January, 2012, present writ petition has been filed. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 28th January, 2012, present writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the permission under Section 34 of Indian Trust Act had been granted on 27th April, 2011, the Court concerned became functus officio and it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to recall the order passed on 27th April, 2011. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Krishna Ashram Educational Trust and another v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, AIR 1995 All 415 . It is further contended that there is no power of review conferred upon the Court under the Act, and therefore, in the absence of an enabling provision, the power to recall the order dated 27.4.2011 could not have been exercised and the order impugned is without jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the property in question was a religious trust and the provisions of the Indian Trust Act itself were not applicable. It has further been submitted that the order dated 27th April, 2011 since had been obtained by concealing order of injunction dated 1.5.2009, passed in proceedings under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, the Court concerned had inherent jurisdiction to recall its order. He submits that the order dated 27.4.2011 was infact obtained by playing fraud upon the Court, and therefore, every Court has inherent jurisdiction to recall such orders by virtue of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8479 of 1999, United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rajendra Singh and others, dated 14.3.2000 and in Civil Appeal No. 1320 of 2007, Ashok Kumar Kapur and others v. Ashok Khanna and others, to submit that the proceedings under Section 34 of Indian Trust Act are advisory in nature and the order passed on 27.4.2011 was otherwise without jurisdiction. 7. The question therefore arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the Court concerned had any jurisdiction to recall its order dated 27.4.2011? 8. Having considered the respective submissions this Court finds that although an injunction was granted in proceedings under Section 92 C.P.C., restraining transfer of trust property in question, but an order under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act was passed on 27.4.2011 permitting such transfer. 8. Having considered the respective submissions this Court finds that although an injunction was granted in proceedings under Section 92 C.P.C., restraining transfer of trust property in question, but an order under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act was passed on 27.4.2011 permitting such transfer. It is apparent that the permission granted on 27.4.2011 was in teeth of the injunction granted on 1.5.2009. In fact the order dated 1.5.2009 was not even disclosed in application under Section 34 of Indian Trust Act. 9. The Court concerned was apprised of the aforesaid factual scenario and taking note of the order of injunction passed, the Court concerned after hearing the parties has withdrawn the permission previously granted on 27.4.2011, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Law is settled that if an order is obtained from a Court of law on the strength of suppression of material fact, the Court concerned has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to recall such orders. Such power under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is to redress the wrong, which has been caused on the strength of concealment and material suppression. 11. Apex Court in India Bank v. Satyam Fibrers (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1996(5) SCC 550 , observed as under: “Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order.” 12. Again in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, 2000 (3) SCC 581 , Apex Court reiterated that no Court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. 13. When facts are viewed in the context of aforesaid proposition of law, this Court finds that the exercise of power under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order was valid. 14. 13. When facts are viewed in the context of aforesaid proposition of law, this Court finds that the exercise of power under Section 151 C.P.C. to recall the order was valid. 14. Judgment of this Court relied upon by petitioners in Krishna Ashram Educational Trust and others v. District Judge, Allahabad and others, AIR 1995 All 415 , will not be of any help to the petitioners, inasmuch as it reiterates the law already settled by the Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 , and Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Managment of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, AIR 1987 SC 2186 , that in the absence of a specific power of review conferred by the statute, such power of review cannot be invoked. The proposition is to well-settled to be questioned. However, where the Court itself has been misled and an order on the strength of concealment/suppression has been obtained by a party, the Court concerned has inherent powers to recall such order. In the facts of the present case, if the Court has come to the opinion that previous order passed by it, was in teeth of an injunction granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, which fact had been suppressed and the order is recalled no exception can be taken. Writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed. ——————