Fraud vitiates judicial protection, and a recalled order requires parties to be restored before fresh merits-based adjudication.

An order obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts can be treated as non-est and recalled under the court's inherent powers, even without a formal prayer for recall. Once the earlier protective order was recalled, the parties had to be restored to their original positions before the dispute could be reconsidered on merits. The eviction direction was therefore not sustained as a final adjudication of substantive rights, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration with liberty to lead evidence if necessary. The underlying tenancy and eviction controversy remained open for decision by the Company Judge.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an earlier order protecting the occupant could be ignored or recalled on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts; (ii) whether the eviction direction could stand without first restoring the parties to their original positions and reconsidering the matter afresh.

Issue (i): whether an earlier order protecting the occupant could be ignored or recalled on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts.

Analysis: An order founded on incorrect or suppressed material cannot be permitted to sustain its legal foundation. Where the Court is satisfied that its earlier order was procured by fraud or by suppression of material facts, the order is liable to be treated as non-est for the purpose of that protection, and the Court has inherent power to recall it. The absence of a formal prayer for recall does not prevent the Court from acting once the fraud is established on the record.

Conclusion: The earlier protective order was held to stand recalled on the ground of fraud and suppression of material facts.

Issue (ii): whether the eviction direction could stand without first restoring the parties to their original positions and reconsidering the matter afresh.

Analysis: Once the prior order was treated as recalled, the parties had to be relegated to their original positions and the dispute had to be reconsidered independently on merits. The Court declined to approve the eviction direction as a final determination of the parties' substantive rights and directed that the matter be heard afresh, with liberty to lead evidence if necessary. The operative protection was continued for a limited period so that further proceedings could take place before the Company Judge.

Conclusion: The eviction direction was not sustained as a final adjudication, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after restoring the parties to their original positions.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was interfered with to the extent necessary to recall the earlier protection, but the substantive dispute over tenancy and eviction was left open for fresh decision by the Company Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts can be recalled under the Court's inherent powers, and once such fraud is found, the parties must be restored to their original positions for fresh adjudication on merits.

---