https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304937 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. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:17:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304937 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304937