https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304938 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. en-us Tue, 04 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:20:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304938 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304938