Fraud challenge to compromise decree may invoke inherent powers, but unsupported admissions barred relief and amendment was refused.

A compromise decree alleged to have been procured by fraud or misrepresentation cannot be challenged through review unless the case fits the limited grounds under Order XLVII Rule 1; however, the court's inherent power under Section 151 remains available to prevent abuse of process where fraud is established. On the facts, the fraud plea was belated, unsupported, and inconsistent with earlier admissions, so the challenge failed. The proposed amendment to the written statement, asserting that the property was the father's separate property, was also rejected because it contradicted prior pleadings and admissions that the property was ancestral and that the plaintiff held a 5/8th share. The revision therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a compromise decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation could be questioned in proceedings under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, notwithstanding the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A and the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1; (ii) whether the amendment sought to the written statement by asserting that the property was the separate property of the father was rightly rejected.

Issue (i): Whether a compromise decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation could be questioned in proceedings under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, notwithstanding the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A and the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1.

Analysis: A challenge to a compromise decree on the ground that the compromise was not lawful is barred by Order XXIII Rule 3A. The alleged fraud or misrepresentation did not fall within the limited grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1, namely discovery of new matter, error apparent, or any other sufficient reason. In such circumstances, the Court's inherent power under Section 151 remains available to set aside an order recording compromise obtained by fraud, because the Court is not powerless to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. On the facts, the plea of fraud was found to be unsupported, belated, and inconsistent with the petitioner's prior conduct and admissions.

Conclusion: The application under Section 151 was maintainable in principle, but the allegation of fraud or misrepresentation failed on facts and the dismissal of that application was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment sought to the written statement by asserting that the property was the separate property of the father was rightly rejected.

Analysis: The proposed amendment was inconsistent with earlier admissions in the notice reply and written statement that the property was ancestral and that the plaintiff had a 5/8th share. The request was made at a late stage and would have contradicted the admitted foundation of the case.

Conclusion: The rejection of the amendment was in law and was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in substance and no interference with the orders of the court below was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise decree alleged to have been procured by fraud cannot be reopened by review when the fraud does not fit within Order XLVII Rule 1, but the court may exercise inherent powers under Section 151 to set aside such an order if fraud is established; however, unsupported and belated allegations will not justify relief.

---