Fraud on the court permits recall of a consent decree, and interested parties may challenge it despite procedural bars.

A consent decree procured by alleged fraud on the court can be questioned before the court that passed it, and the court may use its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to prevent abuse of process and recall an order obtained by deception. The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC does not apply where the grievance is fraud practised on the court itself, and a person with a direct or even slight interest in the property may raise the challenge. On the facts, the decree rested on a disputed transaction and unsupported authority, so it was treated as fraudulent and was set aside with consequential protective reliefs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application to set aside a consent decree obtained by alleged fraud on the court was maintainable at the instance of a person claiming interest in the suit property, including a defendant firm and a third party purchaser; (ii) Whether the consent decree in the suit, founded on an alleged and unproved authority and disputed transaction, was liable to be set aside and consequential protective reliefs granted.

Issue (i): Whether an application to set aside a consent decree obtained by alleged fraud on the court was maintainable at the instance of a person claiming interest in the suit property, including a defendant firm and a third party purchaser.

Analysis: A decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud on the court can be questioned before the court that passed it, and the court's inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is available to prevent abuse of process and to recall an order procured by deception. The bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not defeat such an application where the grievance is fraud practised upon the court itself. A person with a direct or even slight interest in the property, and certainly a defendant firm already on record, can bring such fraud to the court's notice.

Conclusion: The applications were maintainable and the objections to locus standi failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the consent decree in the suit, founded on an alleged and unproved authority and disputed transaction, was liable to be set aside and consequential protective reliefs granted.

Analysis: The alleged consent decree was found to rest on a disputed and unregistered transaction, with no satisfactory proof of consideration, and on an alleged power of attorney that was not on the record and was unsupported by proper authority from the firm. The surrounding material, including the status of the suit property, the missing status of a partner, and the police and criminal proceedings, persuaded the Court that the decree had been procured by fraud and constituted a gross abuse of process. Once the decree was treated as having been obtained by fraud, consequential directions for restoration of the suit, appointment of a receiver, sealing of the premises, and costs followed.

Conclusion: The consent decree was set aside and the connected reliefs were granted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in full, the impugned consent decree was annulled, the suit was restored, and protective and consequential orders were issued to preserve the subject property and secure an expeditious trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A consent decree obtained by fraud on the court is a nullity and may be recalled by the court that passed it in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, including at the instance of a person with an interest in the subject matter.

---