Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be filed by a person who was not initially a party to the proceedings. Such an application is not maintainable at the behest of a stranger to the original suit or proceeding (!) .

2. The inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are to be exercised solely to address grievances for which no specific remedy is provided under the CPC. These powers are meant to ensure justice and should not be used to re-open settled matters or to bypass other specific provisions of law (!) .

3. If an order has been obtained through fraud upon the court, the court has the authority to recall or set aside that order upon the application of the aggrieved party. This power can also be exercised by an appellate court (!) .

4. When fraud is committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate the factual issue of the fraud in its inherent jurisdiction. Instead, the aggrieved party has the right to seek the order or judgment's setting aside through an independent suit (!) .

5. A person who has not made an application before the Land Acquisition Collector under Sections 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot directly seek to be impleaded or seek apportionment of compensation before the Reference Court. Such remedies are only available through proper proceedings initiated by a person interested and through the prescribed channels (!) .

6. The legal principles and the specific facts of the case lead to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court are not sustainable under law. Therefore, the appeals are allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are free to pursue appropriate legal remedies as per law (!) .

These points summarize the core legal propositions and the outcome based on the analysis in the document.