Inherent power to recall a fraudulent compromise is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(m), and revision cannot revisit facts alone.

An order passed under the court's inherent power to recall a compromise obtained by fraud is not an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1(m) read with Order 23 Rule 3, because that provision applies only to orders recording or refusing to record a compromise under the compromise procedure itself. The appeal was therefore not maintainable. On revision, the findings that the compromise was collusive and fraudulent, that the decree-holders had not entered into it, and that forged signatures had been used were based on evidence. As no jurisdictional error was shown, revisional interference was unwarranted. The order setting aside the compromise was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order setting aside a recorded compromise under the court's inherent powers was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(m) of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) Whether the case called for interference in revision on the facts found.

Issue (i): Whether an order setting aside a recorded compromise under the court's inherent powers was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(m) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: An appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(m), read with Order 23 Rule 3, lies only against an order recording or refusing to record a compromise at the stage when that question is decided under the compromise provision itself. An order passed later under Section 151, cancelling an earlier recording of compromise because fraud is found to have been practised on the court, is an exercise of inherent power and not an order under Order 23 Rule 3. The incidental or surplus reference to refusing to record the compromise does not change the real character of the order.

Conclusion: The order was not appealable and the appeal was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the case called for interference in revision on the facts found.

Analysis: The findings below were that the compromise was collusive and fraudulent, the decree-holders had not entered into it, and forged signatures had been used. The dispute turned on appreciation of evidence and no jurisdictional error was shown. In such circumstances, revisional interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: No interference was called for in revision.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the order setting aside the compromise was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall a compromise obtained by fraud is not an appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1(m), and revision will not lie merely to reappreciate facts in the absence of jurisdictional error.

---