B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 10 in A. S. no. 271 of 1997 to recall the judgment and decree dated 05-02-2003 and restore the appeal for adjudication on merits. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief leading to filing of this application are: the 1st respondent herein filed O. S. No. 57 of 1987 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, for partition and separate possession of his share in plaint A,b,c, and D schedule properties. The plaintiff in the suit is the son of D-1 Yaprala Balaiah and D-10 Yaprala Annamma and brother of D-2 Nakkireddy Rajavva, D-3 Bollam Laxmi and D16 Sallanam Santhamma. D-15 Sudhakar Reddy is husband of D-3 and son-in-law of D-1 and D-10. D-1 to D-3, D-10, D-15 and D16 filed separate written statements. Pending trial D-1 died, D-2, D-3 and D16 came to be recognized as Legal Representatives of D-1. D-2 and D-3 filed written statement on 27-03-1995 claiming that their father bequeathed his share in the schedule properties in their favour under registered will dated 16-04-1964. D16 filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. The trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the suit schedule properties shown in A B C and D schedule are owned and possessed by the plaintiff and D-1? (ii) Whether the D-1 exclusively owned and possessed B schedule properties? (iii) Whether Defendant Bos. 4 to 9 are in illegal possession of B schedule properties? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (v) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the relief claimed? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit properties, as prayed for? (vii) To what relief?the following additional issue also came to be framed on 18-04-1995. Additional Issue: Whether defendant No. 16 is entitled for one-fifth share in the suit Schedule properties? on behalf of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as PW. 1 and marked Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendants, D-1 was examined as D. W. 1; D-10 was examined as D. W. 2; D-8 was examined as D. W. 3; D-15 was examined as D. W. 4; D-3 was examined as D. W. 7; besides examining 4 other witnesses as D. Ws. 5,6,8 and 9 marking documents as Exs. A1 to A7. On behalf of the defendants, D-1 was examined as D. W. 1; D-10 was examined as D. W. 2; D-8 was examined as D. W. 3; D-15 was examined as D. W. 4; D-3 was examined as D. W. 7; besides examining 4 other witnesses as D. Ws. 5,6,8 and 9 marking documents as Exs. B1 to B. 44. On thorough appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the trial Court decreed the suit partly by the judgments-dated 24-02-1997. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 57 of 1987, the plaintiff filed A. S. No. 271 of 1997. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff and D-15 Sudhakar Reddy entered into compromise and settled the matter out of Court and filed C. M. P. no. 25012 of 2002 seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the above appeal as per the terms and conditions in Fisalnama dated 21-10-2002. It is stated in the Fisalnama that D-15 entered into compromise with the plaintiff, on his behalf and on behalf of his wife (D-3) and sisterin-law (D-2 ). The said application came to be allowed and the appeal came to the disposed of in terms of the compromise entered into between the plaintiff, D-2, D-3, D-10 and D-15. The relevant portion of the judgment in A. S. No. 271 of 1997 reads as follows: during the pendency of the appeal, the parties seemed to have agreed to share the properties and settle the matter amicable outside the Court. As per their understanding, it seems that the properties shown in Part-A fell to the share of the appellant and the properties shown in Part-B fell to the share of the respondents 2,3,10 and 15. Since both the counsel agreed for this proposal, the appeal is disposed of observing that the properties shown in Part-A shall be allotted to the appellant and properties shown in Part-B shall be allotted to the Respondents 2,3,10 and 15. ( 3 ) THE respondents 2,3 and 10 (D-2, D-3 and D-10) in the appeal have filed this instant application to recall the judgment and decree passed on 05-02-2003 and restore A. S. No. 271 of 1997 for adjudication on merits. The third defendant has given her sworn affidavit in support of the application. ( 3 ) THE respondents 2,3 and 10 (D-2, D-3 and D-10) in the appeal have filed this instant application to recall the judgment and decree passed on 05-02-2003 and restore A. S. No. 271 of 1997 for adjudication on merits. The third defendant has given her sworn affidavit in support of the application. It is averred in the affidavit that D-15 is not empowered to enter into compromise on behalf of D-2, D-3 and D-10. It is further averred that D-15 prayed fraud and misrepresented the facts and got the appeal disposed of in terms of the alleged Fisalnama. It is further averred that the plaintiff in collusion with D-15 has not only played fraud on the petitioners but also misrepresented the facts to the Court and fraudulently obtained the decree-dated 05-02-2003 in A. S. No. 271 of 1997. ( 4 ) THE 1st respondent (plaintiff) and the respondents 1 and 13 (plaintiff and defendant No15) filed counter resisting the application. The counter of R1/plaintiff brief is that the 2nd petitioner B. Laxmi has given General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband who is R13 herein (D15 in the suit) and therefore she cannot file this kind of a petition after disposal of the appeal, which is based on the compromise entered among the parties to the appeal. The trial court has committed error in refusing the claim of this respondent in respect of majority of the properties detailed in the suit schedules. The 2nd petitioner having admitted of her executing a General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband, she is not entitled to file the petition to set aside the compromise recorded by this court on 5-2-2003. The matter was amicably settled between the parties in the presence of panchas at Siddipet and it was reduced into writing and the compromise petitions came to be filed basing on the said settlement and therefore the decree passed in this appeal on 5-2-2003 compromise is not required to be recalled. The terms of faisalnama dt. 21-10-2002 are true and bonafide. There are no valid reasons to recall the order dated 5-2-2003 and restore the appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits. The terms of faisalnama dt. 21-10-2002 are true and bonafide. There are no valid reasons to recall the order dated 5-2-2003 and restore the appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits. ( 5 ) THE counter filed by R13, G. Sudhakar Reddy who is D15 in the suit in brief is as follows: r1/plaintiff initiated the present litigation in the year 1987 and since then he has been looking after the court proceeding on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2 in view of the registered GPA dt. 25-6-1990 executed by them in his favour, by which he has been empowered to deal with the pending litigation and litigated property. He has incurred heavy expenditure beyond his means. His children have grown up which necessitated him to spend lot of money to meet their educational expenses. Apart form it, his daughter also has attained the age of marriage. Keeping these factors in view, he filed petition seeking permission to alienate certain lands. However, no orders could be obtained in the petition. Since the litigation has been pending for over good number of years, he thought it fit to enter into compromise with R1/plaintiff. Accordingly family affairs were thoroughly discussed before the panchayatdars viz. , Sri. A. Reddy and Guravaiah and accordingly Memorandum of compromise dated 21-10-2002 came to be recorded. Basing on the said compromise, R1/plaintiff filed C. M. P. No. 25012 of 2002 seeking permission to withdraw the appeal after modifying the preliminary decree. The said petition was signed by him on his own behalf and also on behalf of 1st and 2nd petitioners as the GPA holder. 3rd petitioner put her thumb impression signifying her consent for the compromise. On presenting the said petition, office raised certain objections and therefore he enclosed the GPA to the petition. Thereafter the petition came up for hearing on 5. 2. 2003 and the said petition came to be disposed of in terms of compromise. After the disposal of the petition, he informed the petitioners about the orders passed by the court and they did not raise any objection. The petitioners developed evil intentions and started making wild allegations and made the life of the petitioners miserable at home. He being not able to put up with their unruly behaviour left the home and started residing separately in Siddipet. The petitioners developed evil intentions and started making wild allegations and made the life of the petitioners miserable at home. He being not able to put up with their unruly behaviour left the home and started residing separately in Siddipet. He has been constantly informing the petitioners of the orders of the court passed from time to time including the order dated 5. 2. 2003. The petitioners are put on notice of the faisalnama dt. 21. 10. 02. He entered into compromise taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the family into account and to put an end to the unnecessary litigation. There is no collusion or fraud in entering into compromise with R1/plaintiff. He is empowered as GPA and as the head of the family to settle the disputes relating to the property once for all as the litigation has become unending. The order dt. 5. 2. 2003 is valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. Hence, seeks dismissal of the application. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that R1 and R13 played fraud on the petitioners as well as the court and got a compromise recorded in the appeal and therefore the decree passed in A. S. No. 271 of 1997 basing on the said compromise is not legal and proper and the same is required to be recalled by this court in exercise of powers under Sec. 151 of CPC. For the proposition that the court which passed the order can recall it if it is found that the aggrieved party had not in fact consented to the compromise, the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. RAJENDRA SINGH (2000) 3 SCC 581 and INDIAN BANK V. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD (1996)5 SCC 550 and the decision of Karnataka High Court in MUKKATIRA DEVAIAH V. M. P. RAJA SINGH AIR 1985 KARANATAKA 273 and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in KRISHAN LAL V. GULAB RAM AIR 1985 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 157. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for R1 submits that the application filed under Sec. 151 CPC to recall the decree passed in pursuance of the compromise is not maintainable. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for R1 submits that the application filed under Sec. 151 CPC to recall the decree passed in pursuance of the compromise is not maintainable. Learned counsel for R13 submits that R13 entered into compromise on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2 by virtue of powers given to him by GPA dated 25. 6. 90 and therefore the compromise entered into by him with R1 is legal and proper and the same has been properly acted upon by the court by passing the decree in A. S. No. 271 of 1997 and therefore the same is not liable to be recalled on an application filed under Sec. 151 CP. ( 8 ) FRAUD and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunguam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything (Lazarus Estates Ltd. V. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702: (1956) 1 ALL ER 341: (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA ). Sec. 151 CPC read as Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make such roders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. ( 9 ) IT is grievance of the petitioners that R1 and R13 colluded together, played fraud on them as well as the court and obtained the compromise recorded behind their back. Whereas it is the answer of R13 who is no other than the husband of 2nd petitioner that he entered into compromise with R1 by virtue of the power conferred on him under GPA executed by petitioners 1 and 2. ( 10 ) THE primary question is whether this court is competent to recall the judgment and decree passed in A. S. No. 271 of 1997 dated 5. 2. 2002 and order dated 5. 2. 2002 made in C. M. P. No. 25012 of 2002 on an application filed under Sec. 151 CPC. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that R1 and R13 played fraud on them as well as the court and got the compromise recorded on 5. 2. 2002. 2. 2002 and order dated 5. 2. 2002 made in C. M. P. No. 25012 of 2002 on an application filed under Sec. 151 CPC. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that R1 and R13 played fraud on them as well as the court and got the compromise recorded on 5. 2. 2002. At this juncture, it is beneficial to note few facts of the case. R1 filed O. S. 57 of 1987 claiming share in plaints A to D scheduled properties. The trial court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for share in the properties that are standing in the name of petitioners 1 and 2 herein. The trial court on thorough reading of the evidence placed on record came to the conclusion that R1 herein is entitled for one-third share in part of A schedule properties. The properties in which R1/plaintiff is entitled for one-third share have been detailed in the schedule annexed to the decree. We may reiterate here that the trial court refused the plaintiffs claim in the properties that are standing in the name of petitioners 1 and 2 and R13. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff who is R1 herein has filed A. S. No. 271 of 1997. ( 11 ) THE total extent of the land shown in plaint A schedule annexed to the plaint is Ac. 51. 03 guntas. The extent of land held to be available for partition between R1 and petitioners is Ac. 27. 19 guntas. As per the preliminary decree R1/plaintiff is entitled to Ac. 9-7 guntas. But as per the alleged faislnama he was given Ac. 32-15 guntas. Some of the properties which are declared as self acquired properties of the petitioners have been allotted to the share of R1/plaintiff in the alleged faisalnama. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the signatories to the said faisalnama. R1 and R13 are parties to the said faisalnama. R13 claims that he entered into compromise with R1 by virtue of powers conferred on him under GPA dated 25-6-1990. Even assuming for the time being that GPA is true, R13 is not authorized to enter into compromise on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2. R1 and R13 are parties to the said faisalnama. R13 claims that he entered into compromise with R1 by virtue of powers conferred on him under GPA dated 25-6-1990. Even assuming for the time being that GPA is true, R13 is not authorized to enter into compromise on behalf of petitioners 1 and 2. We deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of GPA and it reads as follows: it is explicit from the above referred portion of GPA that petitioners 1 and 2 did not authorize R13 to enter into compromise on their behalf. It is also to be noted that GPA is confined to the properties acquired by them under various registered documents. Whereas the faisalnama relates to not only the properties referred in GPA but also some other properties which are shown in the plaint A schedule. It can be said without any hesitation that R13 is not empowered to enter into compromise as GPA holder of the petitioners with R1/plaintiff. R1 and R13 mis-represented and played fraud on the petitioners as well as the court and got the appeal disposed of basing on the alleged faisalnama dt. 21. 10. 2002. It is well settled that if one of the parties to the litigation obtains a favourable order from the Court on the basis of compromise which is alleged by the other party to have been obtained by fraud, the wronged party can seek redress by instituting a suit. But if the other party plays a fraud on the Court as well, then the very Court has inherent power to deal with the matter and grant relief on an application by the wronged party under S. 151 of CPC and it is not necessary for the said party to institute a suit for getting the wrong undone. If fraud has been committed upon the party and as a result of the fraud the court is misled into passing certain orders which otherwise would not have passed, then it is a fraud upon the court itself and in such a case, under its inherent powers, the court is not only entitled to but it must, set aside any order or orders which may have been passed by it on false representation. The Supreme Court held in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. The Supreme Court held in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. RAJENDRA SINGH (2000) 3 SCC 581 that no court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. It is also held by the Supreme Court in INDIAN BANK V. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (1996)5 SCC 550 that the court has inherent power to recall its judgment or order if found to be obtained by fraud or forgery as fraud amounts to abuse of process of the court. ( 12 ) WHEN fraud is practiced on the court in obtaining an order regarding the compromise, the court is perfectly justified in setting aside the same under its inherent powers. Since we are convinced that R1 and R13 played fraud on the petitioners as well as the court and got the appeal disposed of basing on the alleged faisalnama, the order dated 5. 2. 2002 passed in A. S. No. 271 of 1997 and C. M. P. No. 25012 of 2002 are required to be recalled. ( 13 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed recalling the order dt. 5. 2. 2002 passed in A. S. No. 271 of 1997 and also C. M. P. No. 25012 of 2002 and accordingly A. S. No. 271 of 1997 stands restored to file for adjudication on merit.