( 1 ) URI Civil Contractor AB, defendant / Petitioner ( hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the petitioner, for the sake of convenience) through the present revision petition have taken exception to an order dated July 14,1992 passed by Shri Tej Singh kashyap. Sub Judge, Delhi, wherethrough he came to the conclusion that an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable to set aside the judgment and decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of fraud and fixed a date for framing of issues in order to examine the factum of fraud and stayed the operation of the said judgment and decree and directed the parties to maintain the status quo in regard to the custody of the five vehicles.

( 2 ) THE matrix of the case of the petitioner is: that the plaintiff/ respondent (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) : brought forward a suit, being Suit No. 7 of 1992, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner. She prayed through the said suit that the petitioner be restrained from removing 23 vehicles from the workshop of the respondent till they made the payment for the work done by her in connection with the fabrication of the bodies of the said vehicles and till the realisation of the parking charges. The respondent alongwith the said suit also moved an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for ad interim injunction. Vide order dated December 31,1991 the learned Additional District Judge directed the petitioner to maintain the status quo with regard to the vehicles in their possession till the next date.

( 3 ) WHILE the proceedings were going on before the learned lower court, the parties settled the matter amicably on the terms and conditions enumerated in the compromise deed ( Ex. CI) dated March 25,199-2. The court below whereupon decided the suit in terms of the said compromise through his judgment and order dated March 25,1992. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the respondent herein moved an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. dated May 1,1992 for setting aside the said judgment and decree dated March 25,1992 whereby the suit was decided in terms of the compromise Ex. Cl on the ground that the said judgment and decree were the result of a fraud practised on her. She would have never come to terms with the petitioner but for the said fraud practised on her. According to the respondent the petitioner made additions and alterations in the compromise deed Ex. CI. She never agreed and gave her consent to the terms and conditions mentioned in para 3 (b) of Exc1 wherein there is an interpolation and addition of 5 lines. The date was changed from 15. 5. 92 to 30th of April 92. Furthermore, the petitioner as per the agreement alluded to above were under an obligation to place an order for the fabrication of the bodies of seven more vehicles but they did not do so till April 30,1992. In the above circumstances it was prayed that the said judgment and decree be set aside and the case be re-opened and proceeded with.

( 5 ) THE petitioner opposed the said application tooth and nail inter alia on the following grounds: that the application in question is not maintainable. It is false and preposterous that any fraud was ever committed. The respondent entered into the said compromise with her open eyes. The terms of the same were settled after a lot of discussion and deliberations in between the parties in the presence of their counsel. The respondent now wants to wriggle out of the same in order to bring pressure on the petitioner to extort money from them. The parties were completely ad idem at the time of settlement. She thus cannot be allowed to go back on the same. The court below has become functus officio after delivering the judgment. The matter thus cannot be reopened for a trial de novo. The application is thus liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for