Clean hands and disputed fraud claims limit writ relief against a compromise decree in summary proceedings.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and will not aid a litigant who suppresses material facts or approaches the court without clean hands. A challenge to a compromise decree on alleged fraud and forged signatures required disputed factual inquiry, which was unsuitable for summary proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. Since the petitioner had already filed a regular civil suit for adjudication of title and fraud, the application was held not maintainable in the circumstances. The refusal to entertain the application was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner's challenge to the refusal to entertain an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground of alleged fraud in a compromise decree, was maintainable when a regular civil suit had already been filed and the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.

Analysis: The petitioner sought to set aside a compromise decree by invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and is to be exercised only where injustice is shown, and that a litigant who suppresses material facts cannot demand relief. On the facts, the petitioner had already resorted to a regular civil suit for adjudication of title and the alleged fraud and forged signatures required disputed factual determination unsuitable for summary miscellaneous proceedings. The Court further held that, even assuming a stranger could in an appropriate case seek relief against a decree by inherent powers, the existence of the pending suit made the application not maintainable in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rightly rejected, and the writ petition failed.

---