JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. C.M.P. (M) No. 907 of 2009 1. Heard. For the reasons set out in the application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing this appeal is bona fide and delay is condoned in the interest of justice. F.A.O. No. 430 of 2009: The appellant, who is the mother of late Jeet Ram, challenges the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kullu, District Kullu, in Case No. 9 of 2008 dismissing her claim for compensation for the death of her son. The Commissioner dismissed the petition basically on the ground that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Khelu Devi, Ashyam, Sonia Devi and Shanta being the widow and minor children of the deceased had already filed another application being Case No. 3 of 2005 and a sum of Rs. 2,90,000 was awarded to them as compensation for the deceased. What was urged by the petitioner herein before the Commissioner was that she being the mother of the deceased is also entitled to compensation and in these circumstances, the Commissioner should exercise his powers u/s 151, Civil Procedure Code, to recall his earlier order. The Commissioner declined to do so because there is no power of review vested with the Commissioner. 2. The case as urged before this court seems to be that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein (claimants) in Case No. 3 of 2005 before the Commissioner have obtained a judgment by misrepresentation/suppression of facts. In the alternate, it is alleged that there is a glaring mistake on the record which requires to be rectified by awarding compensation to the petitioner herein also. 3. On the first aspect, all that I need to say is that there is no power of review with the Commissioner. The case out of which this petition arises seeks a review of the previous order on the grounds which require proof. On the second aspect, in case the award has been obtained by misrepresentation/fraud, the law is well settled that fraud vitiates all judicial acts. [See: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 581 , N. Khosla Vs. Rajlakshmi (dead) and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 605 ; Hamza Haji Vs. [See: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (1994) 1 SCC 1 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 581 , N. Khosla Vs. Rajlakshmi (dead) and Others, (2006) 3 SCC 605 ; Hamza Haji Vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2006) 7 SCC 416, ; and A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 221 . 4. In these circumstances, the only remedy available with the petitioner, if any, would be to institute a civil suit in accordance with law either for apportionment or having the award set aside as having been vitiated by fraud/misrepresentation which would require proper pleading. This appeal is accordingly disposed of with these directions. I was prompted to dismiss this appeal outright for the simple reason that the petitioner herein uses poverty and illiteracy as a tool of belligerence to invoke the jurisdiction of this court for condonation of delay. Considering also the fact that she has not taken any steps for payment of fee to the guardian ad litem Ms. Divya Sood, who was appointed on the application of the petitioner herein is also a strong ground for dismissal. Poverty may be one factor but it is not an omnibus shield for manipulation of the judicial process. I need not say anything more in view of what I have observed.